Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick

Michael John Hastings Esquire, CBE, having been created Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, of Scarisbrick in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Alton of Liverpool and the Lord Puttnam.

Olympic Games 2012: National Lottery

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to ensure that local art, culture and heritage development throughout the United Kingdom is not affected as a result of £1.5 billion of National Lottery funds being channelled to the Olympic Games in London.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, hosting the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics is a magnificent opportunity for the whole of the United Kingdom. It will invigorate culture, boost tourism and foster regeneration. To minimise the impact on other good causes, new lottery games have been launched and more are planned.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, that is precisely the Answer I expected from the Minister. He is quite right to regard the Olympics as an opportunity and not a threat; clearly that is so. But I hope he will agree that there are a number of what I would call customers—existing customers or future customers—of the lottery who are very worried at the potential diminution in the amount of money that will be available for them. For example, the Heritage Memorial Fund has said that it expects its moneys to fall from about £350 million a year to £230 million a year. Against that background and at this interim period of change in the lottery, could the Minister suggest to his Secretary of State two pieces of advice? First, Ministers should stop interfering in the lottery as much as possible and trying to direct money to their favourite projects for which they have failed to get money from the Treasury; and, secondly, if by chance the Olympics are overspent, that overspend will not be loaded on to the lottery.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we certainly do not expect the Olympics to be overspent. The planning and investment that we are putting into the Olympics are to guarantee that the necessary resources are available. I must emphasise to the House that the Olympics are conceived of as a cultural as well as a sporting event. London outscored Paris because of the emphasis that we put on the cultural legacy from the Olympics and the part that that would play in demonstrating the rich culture and varied inheritance of the British people. Of course I accept what the noble Lord says, but I will not take his first advice to Ministers—about interference in the lottery—because I do not think that it is justified. When changes occur to the proportions distributed from the lottery, those changes are carried through due process and are not interference by Minister in quite the way that the noble Lord indicated. What I will take back to Ministers is the very important point which he makes that we must safeguard funding for culture, heritage and the other good causes.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what my noble friend said about culture but is there not a problem with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in that it comprises a bundle and that, because there is not much in common between each of those elements, there is a danger that one of them might take moneys from the other? I am worried that culture may be the loser here. I should like some assurance from him on that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is often suggested that problems in government occur because of collisions between departments—much reduced, of course, since joined-up government has been such a theme of the Labour Administration. I am sure my noble friend will recognise that getting priorities right is easier within a department which embraces the three concepts that the DCMS does than it would be if there were conflict between departments.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, yesterday the Treasury shut the door on the move to a gross profits tax for the lottery and yet some two years ago a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which was commissioned partly by the Revenue, said that a migration to gross profits tax,
	"would benefit the Good Causes to the tune of £50 million additional revenue a year".
	Is not that a very sensible way of mitigating the effect of the Olympic lottery fund and another reason to be very disappointed at the Chancellor's performance yesterday?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated, we have costed the lottery—its proposals and potential. The noble Lord will recognise that the lottery has recovered very significantly from the decline in sales which occurred a few years ago. It is now very much in a steady state, we are pleased to relate. It is early days for making calculations on improvements, but the Olympic Games, of course, provide the opportunity for new lottery games which are being taken up with considerable enthusiasm and help to spread the message among the whole of the population. The noble Lord will recognise from that that we have the right to anticipate that the lottery will make gains as the years go by.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these criticisms are short-termist and misconceived because, as he said, the bid included a very strong cultural and heritage dimension? There will be a cultural Olympiad as well as a sporting Olympiad. In any case, surely culture and heritage will benefit enormously from the £2 billion-plus that will come in. Are not these criticisms wholly out of place?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is true. In addition to my noble friend's important statistic, many billions of people—4 billion people—will watch the opening ceremony. A very large number of people will watch the Olympic Games. A great deal of the games are taking place in iconic buildings which represent our cultural heritage. Sydney ensured that 88 per cent of the people who had visited the city for the Olympic Games went back for a second visit. Why cannot London do at least as well as that? Does not that help to give us cause for optimism in the future in the amount of revenue that will come to all aspects of our heritage to the benefit of the whole country?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, while I am filled with admiration for the leadership given by my noble friend Lord Coe on the Olympics and the Olympics bid, given what the Minister has just described as the benefits, which are a public good and which everyone shares, is it right that so much of it should be funded by a highly regressive form of taxation, which is what the National Lottery is becoming because the Government are reneging on the clear commitment that was given that funds which were raised through the lottery would be additional and not used to fund matters which should be the proper province of the taxpayer?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that the Olympic Games are a unique phenomenon. Of course it was right, given the significant investment necessary before the undoubted returns would occur, that such investment should have strategies attached to it that were different from those normally associated with the Treasury's taxation structure. That is why, surely, it is right that the lottery should play its part, not least because it gives us a chance to alert and awaken the imagination of the British people to what the Olympic Games can achieve for us all.

British Army Uniforms

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether British Army uniforms are being manufactured in China.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, some British Army uniforms are being manufactured in China, including those being successfully supplied under the cut and sewn garments contract awarded to a UK supplier in 2004.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting reply, because no jobs are being created in Northern Ireland. Are any of those garments being manufactured in Lithuania? If so, what percentage? Are the breatheability and waterproofing to specification?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords. All items manufactured in China are to specification and meet the required standard. I cannot go into details about breatheability, but I am happy to write to my noble friend on that. Yes, some of our forces' clothing is manufactured in Lithuania through UK suppliers. I cannot give him the percentage. Last time I looked, Northern Ireland was part of the UK, and therefore we are using a UK company. That Fermanagh company will obtain many benefits as a result of its five-year contract.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the emperor of China bestowed upon "Chinese Gordon" the rank of a field marshal in the Chinese army, so that after the Red Guards had done their worst, the only surviving edition of a Chinese field marshal's uniform was in the Royal Engineers' museum in Chatham, to which General Gordon bequeathed it? Therefore, there is an opportunity for trade in the opposite direction.

Baroness Crawley: Well, my Lords, you learn something new every day in this House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for that fascinating information.

Lord Garden: My Lords, how many variants are there to what is paradoxically called uniform in the British forces? Given the wide variety of uniforms, if the Ministry of Defence is looking for better ways to spend defence money, might it now be time, as everyone in units wears DPM kit rather than other uniforms, to look at whether the more esoteric and expensive items might be held centrally, rather than on personal issue?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the defence industrial strategy, with which I know the noble Lord is familiar and on which there will soon be some public announcements, has looked carefully at supply of uniforms. One of the reasons we have this single major contract with Cooneen, Watts and Stone is that we found that past procurement of uniforms had not been as efficient and effective as it should have been. So the noble Lord is right, and we have learned the lessons that he his asking us to learn; but we learned them before he asked us.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Army getting the benefit of new technology in textiles, rather than buying uniforms made out of old-style fabrics because they are cheap?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, all the services, including the Army, benefit from research and development into new and modern textiles all the time. It is an ongoing process. Whether we like it or not, the manufacture of Army and civilian garments is now outsourced to other countries, including China.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, bearing in mind the embargo placed on the import of bras from China earlier in the year by Commissioner Mandelson, is the Minister confident that a similar embargo will not be placed on the import of British Army uniforms, thus causing the European Union to leave our troops naked in the face of the enemy?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we will ensure that our troops are not left naked. In fact, the UK Armed Forces are among the best equipped in the world, as their repeated successes in operations demonstrate.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in placing the order with a company in Northern Ireland, which then gave the order to a company in China to manufacture the goods, production was stopped at a similar plant in the north-west of England that had produced the garments for the past 20 years? As a result, a lot of English people in the north-west, where manufacturing jobs are dropping at a tremendous rate, were put out of a job. Why do the Government not appreciate that the overall costs include not only those of the garments but perhaps the extra cost of losing jobs in the north-west of England and in the UK generally?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the procurement of these uniforms was carried out in adherence with UK public procurement regulations. They are derived from EC directives, which, again, whether we like it or not, do not permit discrimination in favour of a national interest. In fact, the companies that submitted tenders for this contract are all UK-based. Their manufacturing is often sub-contracted and outsourced beyond the UK but they are all UK-based companies.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why do we not buy the garments direct?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the companies that we ask to tender are the most efficient and effective to clothe a modern Army.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the whole contract was placed in China. Does my noble friend not agree that breatheability is crucial? Without it, the uniforms become extremely uncomfortable, troops sweat a lot and their performance is put at risk. Is it not rather stupid that we put performance and maybe the troops' lives at risk for the sake of saving a few pounds?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. We are not putting any troops' lives at risk. The garments being manufactured in China come up to modern garment specification. I shall certainly look into the issue of breathability.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if she needs any professional advice—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are now 16 minutes into Question Time.

Ministerial Code

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will require retiring or resigning Ministers of the Crown not only to consult the advisory committee before taking up employment in the private sector but also to adhere to the Ministerial Code and follow any advice given by the committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, paragraph 5.29 of the Ministerial Code states that former Ministers should seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any appointments that they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. Having received the advice of the advisory committee, it is for the former Minister to decide whether to accept it.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but is he not aware of the serious public concern at the fact that the Ministerial Code has been flouted by two former Cabinet Ministers, who took up jobs in the private sector without consulting the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments? Who is responsible for ensuring that the code is adhered to? Is it not the Prime Minister?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that former Ministers have failed to consult the advisory committee. As I made clear in my initial response, it is expected that they should consult. Having gone through the process of consultation and seeking advice, it is then up to the former Minister to decide what he does. Ultimately, it is for Parliament to police the scheme, which I think has worked very well since it was introduced in 1995.

Lord McNally: My Lords, is it not essential for public confidence in our public services that Ministers and senior civil servants do not spend the twilight of their period in office thinking of their next appointment in the private sector? Is there not a real danger, particularly in departments with large procurements, of that happening?
	What has happened to the inquiry by Sir Patrick Brown into the working of the advisory committee, which the Prime Minister has been sitting on for over a year? What has happened to the advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which recommended beefing up the powers of the advisory committee?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in response to the first set of comments, of course it is important that Ministers focus on their jobs. That is what our Ministers have been doing. It is also in the public interest, however, that former Ministers have the opportunity to move into business and other areas of life once they have completed their term of office. I would hope that we would all agree that it is very important that there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety about a particular appointment. That is why the code is there, and why the expectation is that there should be full and proper consultation.
	The noble Lord asked about the Brown review. Sir Patrick Brown has carried out a thoroughgoing review of the business appointment rules, which has been submitted to the Cabinet Office. We are currently giving the matters it raises full consideration, and hope to respond in due course.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that it is up to Parliament to police the system. How does Parliament do that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in a sense, the noble Earl has rather fulfilled part of the obligation in posing the question. It is for Parliament to hold its Members to account, to scrutinise and to act in the court of public opinion.

Lord Stratford: My Lords, this is a great big fuss over very little. We have probably the least corrupt political process in the entire world. The more that people try to score cheap political points, however, the more we undermine public confidence in the whole political system.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I completely agree with that. We have a robust system. Our Government have upheld the processes very firmly. The Prime Minister has made that very clear. By and large, I think it is fair to say that Ministers stick by the rules.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that if he accepts the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, we will soon not have the least corrupt political system in the world? It is precisely because these matters should be vigilantly observed and monitored that we ever manage to maintain the standards that are so important to public life in this country.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is a member of a party that found the need to introduce this system. We believe it works well. We are greatly indebted to the committee. All of its members are distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. They do a first-rate job. We have one of the best political systems in the world, and I would have thought that it is clear to all of us that we do not have corruption within that system. The noble Lord, Lord Stratford, made a perfectly valid and important point. I do not think it was about complacency at all.
	Finally, when we came into office, our Government decided to extend the system so that it covered special advisers.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is it not about time that the Government imposed a rule that ex-Ministers are required not only to consult the committee, but also to accept its recommendations in the same way that outgoing civil servants are?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is clearly desirable that they give fair consideration to the views expressed by the committee. I am not aware that there are manifest abuses of the advice given. However, while the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may have an important point, how then do you ensure effective policing of that advice? It is a very difficult relationship. On balance, I feel that the committee works well and has got things about right.

Lord Soley: My Lords, can we make it clear that Parliament polices Parliament and we should not ask the Government to police it? It does not work that way. If it did, the Liberal Democrat Party could be asked questions about money coming from overseas and I do not think it would like that. So let us be very clear: Parliament is responsible for the way it polices its Members. Governments are not responsible for that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and I suspect he is right that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches would feel extremely uncomfortable if the system were to operate in the way the noble Lord suggests.

Rape: Definition of Consent

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will put forward proposals at the earliest opportunity to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to clarify the definition of consent in cases of rape.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was the result of a lengthy consultation and represented a major overhaul of sexual offending legislation. The Act clarified the law on consent and provided a list of circumstances in which it is presumed that a complainant did not consent, although it remains for the courts to decide guilt on the facts of each case. The Act is kept under constant review.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the Answer. Does she agree that the low rate of conviction in rape cases and the low rate of reporting in rape cases will only get worse as a result of the recent case in Swansea? Does she further agree that the statement made in the court and apparently accepted by the judge that drunken consent is still consent is surely at variance with the Sexual Offences Act, which I understand established the principle that no one can consent to sex except by choice, with the freedom and capacity to make that choice? Does my noble friend still feel that the legislation is right and adequate? If so, was the court's decision perverse or was it the other way round?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be improper for me to comment on the case in Swansea without having the full facts in relation to it. I can agree with my noble friend that the changes we made to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were very important. They made it clear that consent had to be a part; they included presumptions as to when consent would clearly not be considered to have been given; and they placed a burden on the defendant. The Solicitor General is looking at this issue in relation to how we should review rape law and is due to report early next year. Noble Lords will know of the rape action plan which we hope will be able to address more vigorously the low conviction rate and the lack of appropriate redress that is currently felt in relation to the number of rape victims.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, given that the sentencing guidelines recommend a five-year term of imprisonment for a single offence of rape of an adult victim with no aggravating features, would the Government ever countenance that a defendant should be sent to prison for such a term when the complainant agrees that she may have consented but cannot remember through drink?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the whole point is whether the alleged victim did or did not consent. The noble Lord will know that often that is an issue of fact that has to be determined by a jury which has all the facts and circumstances laid before it.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, would your Lordships allow me to agree with the Minister? There is no need for any further clarification. This was a case where alcohol had been consumed and it is common knowledge that alcohol can dull the inhibitions. As a result, consent can be given which otherwise would not occur. A good example of a non-sexual kind occurred in Cambridge where an undergraduate of Magdalene dived off Magdalene Bridge without first satisfying himself that there was water running under it. I would respectfully suggest that the same occurs in this type of case—the inhibitions, which have been reduced, still enable the complainant to consent and in those circumstances the prosecution cannot prove its case.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to have the noble and learned Lord's assent to anything that I say from this Dispatch Box. As he has indicated, the important issue is whether consent was given. If the person, for whatever reason, lacked the capacity to give consent, that would be for the jury to determine.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would it not be better to await the results of the inquiry before jumping recklessly to any conclusions?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right if he is referring to the facts of this case. Therefore, I was clear in saying that I do not comment on the facts of the case, because we do not know whether consent was given, whether it was inappropriate for the case to be withdrawn from the jury or, if it had been left to the jury, whether it would have come to a different decision. We will have to wait and see. The law in relation to this area has recently been clarified. We believe that the review of rape being undertaken by the Solicitor General will be helpful. Some of these knotty, difficult, legal questions can be looked at again, if necessary.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether consent under duress is not consent?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would not be consent because consent has to be freely given. Duress can, in certain circumstances, vitiate consent because the person must be able to say, "I agree". If one is under duress, consent is not freely given.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, despite the tremendous effort being made by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the training aspect of such cases, why has the conviction rate dropped to 5.3 per cent, the lowest-ever figure? What has gone wrong?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the figure is going up slightly as a result of the change in the law. At the moment, it is just under 6 per cent. The noble Lord makes a good and valid point when one compares prosecutions for rape with those for other offences. Through the rape action plan, we are looking to better identify the reasons that seem to undermine our ability to prosecute successfully those who appear to have committed this horrific offence, in the hope that we will be able to find a better methodology to protect and support individuals who are subjected to it.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I have a couple of points to make about business today. First, I remind the House that a Statement on benefits uprating and welfare reform will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We have arranged for the Statement to take place after the three opening speeches of the Second Reading debate; that is, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
	So far as timing is concerned, we have a Second Reading debate with 19 speakers. We also have to accommodate the Statement and to be clear for the Unstarred Question to start by 8.30 pm at the latest. My calculation is that that gives around 10 to 11 minutes for each Back-Bench speaker.

Constitution Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Lord Goodlad be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Monro of Langholm.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	In February this year, the Government published a five-year strategy on asylum and immigration. Implementation of the five-year strategy is now under way. Most of the measures in the strategy can be put in place through changes to our existing processes and the immigration rules. This Bill covers those aspects of the strategy which require primary legislation.
	Migration presents undeniable benefits to this country. It is vital that economic migrants are able to fill the gaps in our labour market that cannot be filled from the domestic workforce, and that we maintain the valuable contributions that overseas students and visitors make to our educational institutions, the tourism industry and the wider economy. The Government will also continue to protect those genuinely fleeing persecution. However, we will not tolerate abuse of the system.
	The five-year strategy contains a programme of measures to make our immigration and asylum systems simpler, clearer and robust. There are four key elements to this work.
	First, we will introduce a new, points-based system for those coming to the UK to work or study. We have consulted widely to ensure that the system will be properly calibrated to target those workers whom we need most and that it will be straightforward for employers and applicants to use. This simplified system will be more transparent and objective, and robust against abuse. In line with the implementation of the points-based system, we are removing entry clearance appeal rights. Those measures are covered in Clauses 1 to 14.
	Secondly, we are putting in place a new asylum process which will enable us to fast-track almost all new cases and to maintain contact with asylum seekers at key points in the process, so that we are in a better position to remove those whose claims are unfounded. That will be complemented by our new strategy on refugee integration launched in March of this year. Related measures are covered in Clauses 12, 29 and 44.
	Thirdly, we will strengthen our immigration controls to make it harder for people both to enter and to stay in the country illegally. We are putting in place a fully integrated immigration control that is intelligence-led and uses new technology to check people before they depart for the UK, on arrival, while they are here and on departure from the UK. That will be supported by measures to target employers of illegal workers. That is covered in Clauses 15 to 42.
	Fourthly, the modernised immigration control and new asylum process, together with major new investment in frontline staff, will enable us significantly to increase removal of failed asylum seekers. That will be facilitated through our expanding programme of co-operation on removals with major source countries. Clauses 45 and 46 cover those measures.
	Your Lordships will be only too aware that following the events of 7 and 21 July, the Government undertook a thorough review of our immigration, asylum and nationality laws in the light of the heightened risk from terrorism. As a result, we have brought forward a number of additional provisions, which were added to the Bill during its consideration in another place.
	Those provisions will deny asylum to those involved in terrorism and speed up the appeals process in national security deportation cases. They will also extend our powers to withhold and to remove British nationality and the right of abode in the UK where an individual is found to have engaged in behaviour which creates a climate in which extremism can take root.
	I turn briefly to the detail of the Bill. Clauses 1, 3 and 11 are concerned with appeal rights for people in the United Kingdom who are refused a further period of leave or who have their leave curtailed. At the moment, many people in that position are able to appeal twice: first, against the decision which brings their leave to an end and, subsequently, against a decision to enforce their removal from the UK. Clauses 1, 3 and 11 replace that system with a single appeal at the removal stage during which the appellant can challenge any earlier decision which gave rise to the decision to remove them from the country.
	An exception is made for people who have previously been granted leave in recognition of their need for protection. The provisions in Clause 1 will ensure that whenever there is a decision to withdraw refugee status, there will be a discrete right to challenge this decision. Clause 1 will also allow the Secretary of State to provide discrete rights of appeal against decisions to curtail or to refuse to vary other categories of leave. Those categories will be designated in secondary legislation.
	Clause 4 removes the full right of appeal against refusal of entry clearance for work and study routes. That policy was set out in the five-year strategy and was a manifesto commitment. Appeal rights will be focused on cases that raise fundamental issues of rights and protection. Full appeal rights will be maintained for people who are refused entry clearance as a family visitor or a dependant.
	The introduction of the points-based scheme will ensure that the rules for entering the UK to work or as a student are clear and transparent. As was said in another place, the withdrawal of appeal rights will form part of the wider programme of work to implement the points-based system.
	Clause 5 limits the right of appeal against refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter if someone fails to provide a medical report or certificate when required. It will have no effect on the appeal rights of someone who provides the requested report, whatever its contents may be. I will explain the purpose of Clause 7 later alongside other provisions which have been inserted in the Bill following the July events.
	Clause 9 prevents appeals from being abandoned due to a grant of leave when the appellant may wish to continue with his or her challenge. Clause 13 ensures that a person who has complied with the terms of his leave shall not be committing an immigration offence during any appeal against a removal decision brought in the UK. A key provision is to tackle effectively illegal working by punishing those who use workers who are not legally allowed to seek paid employment in the UK.
	Clauses 15 to 24 create a new civil penalty for employers of illegal workers and set out how the scheme will work. In particular, Clauses 15 and 16 set out the circumstances in which a penalty may be issued to an employer found to be using illegal workers; the requirements that employers must fulfil to be able to prove that they have taken reasonable steps to assure themselves that employees are entitled to work in the UK; and grounds—

Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for graciously giving way. Before she finishes this section, how will these proposals tie in with gangmasters legislation? Clearly, the abuses of migrant workers illegally employed have shocked everyone in both Houses.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. I had planned to do that specifically in my closing remarks. Perhaps I may deal with it then. The noble Baroness is right that we need to do everything that we can to prevent the kind of illegality that we have seen in those circumstances.
	As I indicated, there are also grounds on which an employer can object to the issue of a civil penalty, so there is a range of circumstances in which employers will be brought into this legislation, which I am sure that noble Lords will wish to discuss. Clause 19 requires a code of practice to be issued covering the criteria to be used in determining whether a penalty should be issued and the amount. The maximum amount to be paid per employee would be £2,000. Clause 21 creates a new criminal offence of employing a person knowing that they are not legally entitled to work in the UK. It provides that the maximum penalty for conviction following indictment is two years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
	Clause 23 requires a code of practice to be issued specifying how employers avoid contravening the Race Relations Act in carrying out their duties to avoid liability under the new scheme. We are clear that those provisions do not give employers licence to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the grounds of race or nationality. The Bill makes a number of amendments to existing legislation to facilitate the enforcement and transparency of the immigration and asylum systems. In order to improve our immigration control, in addition to tackling illegal working, we will introduce measures to enhance the data capture powers of the border agencies and enable greater inter-agency co-operation to support an intelligence-led approach to border control.
	Clauses 27 allows immigration officers to require passengers who present biometrically enabled travel documents to provide biometric information to allow their identity to be checked against the documents. That is necessary to support the global roll-out of fingerprinting visa applicants by 2008. Clause 29 reduces the notice period given to asylum seekers and their families who cannot be fingerprinted on application. This supports the new asylum model by ensuring that claims are considered more swiftly.
	Clause 30 amends the list in the Immigration Act 1971 of documents that may be used to prove an individual's right of abode in the UK. It adds to the list ID cards issued to British citizens as proposed under the current Identity Cards Bill, and appropriately endorsed passports issued to British subjects with the right of abode here. Clauses 31 to 33 and 35 provide for the Immigration Service, police and Customs and Revenue officers to acquire passenger, crew, service and freight data from planes and ships in advance of their arrival in and departure from the UK. Clause 34 sets out the offence for failing to comply with a request for data. Clauses 36 to 39 cover who the information must or may be shared with and the purposes for which it may be shared.
	Clauses 40 and 41 allow authorised persons other than Immigration Service officers to search vehicles at ports for individuals and documents relating to possible immigration offences. This would allow the searches to be carried out by private contractors to enable immigration officer time to be used more effectively. The provisions would also allow authorised persons powers to search and detain people and documents. Authorised persons will include police constables and officers of HM Revenue and Customs. Clause 42 requires a monitor to be appointed to oversee the search functions of these authorised persons.
	Clause 43 allows local authorities to provide accommodation to recipients of benefits under Section 4 of the 1999 Act if they desire. The clause also prevents the creation of secure tenancies for Section 4 recipients across the UK.
	Clause 44 amends the statutory framework creating the refugee integration loan to reflect the change in policy announced in the five-year strategy granting refugees an initial five years' leave to remain.
	Clause 45 puts HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' voluntary oversight of short-term holding facilities and escorts on to a statutory footing, bringing it into line with the oversight exercised in respect of immigration removal centres.
	Clause 46 provides that where a person has breached the conditions of limited leave, or has obtained leave to remain by deception, leave is invalidated when he is served with the decision to remove him from the United Kingdom.
	Clause 47 allows the requirement for certain applicants under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be of full mental capacity to be waived where it is in the applicant's best interests not to enforce that requirement.
	Clauses 48 to 50 provide a power to prescribe procedures to be followed and fees to be paid when making particular applications under the Immigration Rules. They also enable, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, the designation of particular services as chargeable to users. These measures will allow the Home Office, where appropriate, to recover more of its costs from the users of its services.
	Clauses 7 and 51 to 55 provide a concrete set of measures to tighten further our asylum, immigration and nationality controls in light of the heightened terrorist threat highlighted so graphically in July. Clause 7 will ensure the swift deportation of those who are a threat to the UK's national security. It will achieve this by requiring that the often lengthy challenges to our assessment that a person is a threat to national security take place after a person leaves the UK rather than before. There will remain an in-country right of appeal against deportation on human rights grounds unless the Secretary of State certifies that removal would not breach our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Where such a certificate is issued the deportee will be able to challenge the Secretary of State's assessment of the human rights claim before removal. The clause therefore balances our responsibilities to abide by our international obligations with our responsibilities to protect the public.
	Clause 51 confirms that the power of arrest in deportation cases is available when notice of intention to deport is ready but has not yet been given to a prospective deportee. This will ensure that immigration officers and constables can continue to seek a warrant to enter named premises in order to search for and arrest a prospective deportee and serve him with a notice to deport.
	Clause 52 provides an interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention to make it absolutely clear that acts of committing, preparing or instigating terrorism or of encouraging or inducing others to do so will result in exclusion from asylum. Although the Refugee Convention already provides the necessary framework for denying refugee protection to those who engage in acts of terrorism, we consider that a more explicit interpretation of Article 1F(c) is required in order to clarify who falls within the scope of that exclusion clause. The clause reflects the provisions of relevant Security Council resolutions which set out the types of acts that are considered to be contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
	Clause 53 will replace an existing criterion for deprivation of British nationality—that the person concerned had done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom—with the criterion that it is conducive to the public good to deprive a person of their British nationality. The proviso that the individual could not, by this means, be rendered stateless will continue to have effect, as will the provision for a right of appeal.
	Clause 54 will confer on the Secretary of State a power, subject to a right of appeal, to remove a right of abode in the United Kingdom where such a right derived from possession of citizenship of another Commonwealth country and it was deemed conducive to the public good to remove or exclude the individual from the United Kingdom.
	Clause 55 will require those seeking to acquire British nationality by registration to satisfy the Secretary of State that they were of good character before nationality could be granted.
	Clause 56 exempts immigration detainees from the national minimum wage in respect of work done in a removal centre. Exemptions will allow detainees to be provided with opportunities to engage in paid activity.
	We have made great strides already in improving our asylum and migration systems and in strengthening our border control. Implementation of the five-year strategy will consolidate these successes to ensure that we have effective, transparent and equitable migration processes which the public can understand and have confidence in. The Bill will provide the legislation for doing this. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we support the main thrust of the Bill but there are some significant problems caused by it that we will need to debate in Grand Committee. I thank Amnesty for organising yesterday a comprehensive briefing for all noble Lords about the major issues that will need to be addressed.
	This is the third Bill on such matters since I became spokesman on home affairs a little over three years ago. It is the fourth Bill that the Government have presented. Last year, when we passed what the then Home Secretary described as the "final phase" of asylum reform—the plan to bring speed and finality to the appeals and removals process—I hoped he was right. But it has proved not so. The result is that the number of removals has fallen in five of the past six quarters. Only 14,000 failed asylum seekers, including dependants, were removed in 2004–05, which is 21 per cent fewer than in the previous year. If that was supposed to be the final phase, then this Bill is certainly something of an afterthought.
	Indeed, that was admitted with admirable candour by the Minister for Immigration, Mr McNulty, in Committee in another place, when he said,
	"that—for once—this Bill is not presented as the all-singing, all-dancing answer, solution and comprehensive retort to whatever is going on in the asylum and immigration world, as some of the others have been".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 18/10/05; col. 25.]
	The problem is, of course, that in spinning the story that the Government were solving immigration and asylum problems with the sweep of a press release pen, they failed to grip the whole picture. So we now have what Mr McNulty described in Committee in another place as,
	"a legislative jigsaw puzzle".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 18/10/05; col. 4.]
	Does the Minister agree that it is time now for consolidating legislation? Cutting and pasting together so many pieces of legislation and inserting new snippets of text means that it is very difficult to follow exactly what is happening. One has only to look at the drafting of Clause 1 to see how little clarity that brings to those who seek guidance on rights of appeal.
	The Minister referred to the Government's policy of managed migration. That could make a valuable contribution to our economy, our culture and many aspects of our society. As the Government recognise, uncontrolled immigration can have the opposite effect. Indeed, any policy of managed migration inherently recognises that fact by imposing a cap on migration by introducing an executive assessment of an acceptable type of migrant that is to be contained within the structure of a points system. A points system is a gateway to migration, but it is also one that slams the door shut on many.
	The problem is that the Government are making changes to the appeals processes in the Bill months—perhaps years—before they put the points system in place, let alone assess whether it is a success or not. The success or failure of so much of this Bill really depends upon the successful operation of the points system. We are being presented with the cart before the horse.
	I turn, first, to the section on appeals. My right honourable friend Mr Davis made it clear in another place that:
	"Although Conservative Members are minded to accept the Home Secretary's arguments on appeals, the decision hinges strongly on improvement in quality".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/05; col. 196.]
	Debates on the Bill in another place revealed concerns about the need to improve the quality of decision much more before we launch into the withdrawal of in-country appeal rights.
	We shall need to look in detail in Grand Committee at the clauses on appeals to check that they strike the right balance between an individual's rights and the needs of an effective administration. We will need to look carefully at how effective the initial decision procedure is in making that judgment.
	The Government should ensure that those who take initial decisions in asylum and immigration cases are thoroughly trained and expert. The quality of that initial decision-making still gives great cause for concern throughout this House and throughout the immigration world.
	The debates in another place have persuaded us that there is probably good reason to retain in-country rights of appeal in some narrowly drawn categories where people will be in the country having entered legally with leave. The disruption they face if they are forced to leave the United Kingdom could cause administrative problems and give rise to successful human rights applications in the courts and to compensation claims.
	I turn specifically to the question of the impact of the changes on students. Clause 1 removes the right of appeal against an adverse decision in relation to varying leave to enter or remain. That may hit genuine students. I give as an example a Chinese PhD student who is wrongly refused leave to extend his stay by, let us say, three months to complete his work or attend a graduation ceremony. He would have to go home to Shanghai and then institute appeal proceedings from there. Where is the sense in that?
	Students will also be adversely affected by the removal of appeals rights in Clause 4. Government figures have shown that 25 per cent of international student appeals against visa refusals are successful. I have raised in debates on other matters the fact that problems may arise when temporary staff are sent to places such as Chennai to deal with log-jams of applications and they simply do not have the expertise to make appropriate initial decisions.
	We should remember that immigration decisions such as the refusal of a visa remain on the record of would-be migrants. A UK visa refusal could surely prejudice any future visa applications made by a prospective student. The United Kingdom should be doing all it can to attract international students for economic, social and cultural reasons. We are at one with the Government on that. The fact that United Kingdom universities attract the best and brightest students from around the world is a key factor in the world-class standing of our higher education.
	The Government's argument that as other countries do not offer such rights of appeal, there is no problem for us in abolishing our own does not wash with me. If others choose to adopt a flawed system, that is their choice. We do not have to follow suit. There is a danger that if one takes away students' right of appeal when initial decisions are often flawed, the consequence may be that the quality of those initial decisions will become even more flawed and arbitrary. If no appeal is permitted, there is the clear danger that the person making that decision will be less likely to think that it is a priority to get the decision right.
	Why have the Government not considered delaying the removal of the right of appeal until there has been a demonstrable improvement in decisions made by entry clearance officers? It is right that the Government should be asked in Grand Committee to look again at their proposals to abolish the right of appeal for students. We will table amendments to enable that debate to take place.
	I turn to employers and their role. The Bill promises new sanctions against people who employ illegal immigrants. I welcome the Government's intention wholeheartedly. The exploitation that has developed in some sectors of our economy in recent years is a disgrace to a civilised society. But sanctions are already available; they have just not been used. It is already illegal under Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 for an employer to hire a person subject to immigration control where that person lacks permission to work in the UK. There have been only 24 prosecutions in the past seven years under that legislation. Why not more? In Committee, we will need to probe why the Government wish to abandon a criminal offence, which has a maximum fine of £5,000, and replace it with a civil fine of a maximum of £2,000. It will be important for the Government to demonstrate that the civil penalty will have a greater impact on the evil that they rightly seek to eradicate.
	It is also important that we get the balance right. We must ensure that employers can comply with the requirements and face a penalty only when they are culpable of trying intentionally to hire migrants who have no legal right to work in the UK. There may be risks that employers, not least because of the heavy burden imposed on them to check documents, will be reluctant to employ people whom they think might be subject to immigration control. That could result in an increase in discrimination in employment in spite of the good intentions behind the Clause 23 promise of a code of practice to guide employers.
	The Government added significant new clauses in Committee in another place in response to heightened and justified concerns about terrorism. The Government have been open and consultative during the summer about the way in which they introduced those clauses in another place. I make no complaint that approaches were not made directly to this House; the consultation was carried out in the correct way at the correct time. We will have our opportunity to contribute during the passage of this Bill. I also welcome the constructive approach taken by the Minister, Mr McNulty, on Report about the role of this House in debating these matters. He said:
	"I agree with those who suggest that it would be nice if the other place were to have a detailed discussion on that point"—
	the terrorism point—
	"reflecting our discussion in Committee rather than today's truncated debate".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/05; col. 1066.]
	Truncated, it most certainly was. We will ensure that there is time to have a proper, constructive and supportive debate on those matters.
	I give the House my commitment that we will use Grand Committee productively to ensure that, above all else, the impact of the myriad of measures throughout the Bill is balanced by a good dose of humanity and good old-fashioned common sense.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for explaining the provisions of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. I am glad that the noble Baroness has the lead responsibility because experience has confirmed that she is prepared to listen and effect changes where appropriate. We are delighted to do business with her.
	Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effect of various immigration and asylum legislation—this is the fifth effort in 10 years—the circumstances surrounding them remain fairly contentious. We have never disputed that every country has a right to determine its immigration policy, and the United Kingdom is no exception, but we are looking for justification of the present system. Where is the abuse that makes us remove the appeal system? We are told that present legislation is a by-product of the Government's five-year strategy on asylum and immigration and its purpose is to make migration work for Britain. We have no dispute with that. Economic migrants have helped to make Britain one of the richer countries in the world, economically and culturally. There remains a positive economic benefit from managed immigration to fill the demand for skills and labour that are in short supply.
	For that reason, we should concentrate more on the economic benefits of immigration. Let me spell out the reality in Britain today. Home Office research shows that immigrants, including refugees, are a net benefit to the community to the tune of £2.5 billion. Treasury figures suggest that economic growth would fall by 0.5 per cent over the next two years if migration to Britain ceased. Visitors from outside Europe spent £6.8 billion in Britain during 2002. There are 11,000 overseas teachers working in British schools. In higher education, over 33,000 out of 140,000 staff are from overseas. Overseas students spend more than £3 billion a year on fees, goods and services.
	We are told that it is necessary to radically reform the administration of the Immigration Service to secure public confidence in the system. It is here that we need to demonstrate leadership. The culture and operational policies adopted by the Home Office are notoriously inefficient, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. This is not helped by political interference and target-driven policies. Nowhere is this more explicit than in the operation of our asylum policies. The Home Office has failed to provide a service that is efficient, effective, timely and fair for all. By any standards, the decision making on asylum application is poor. While nine of 10 asylum applications are initially refused, 20 per cent of cases that go to appeal are successful. For some countries, the rate of successful appeal is over 40 per cent. This indicates a very high error rate in initial decisions and poor levels of training of caseworkers and interview staff. This is not helped by political pronouncements that result in "a culture of rejection".
	We have seen race and immigration issues being exploited during general elections. The attempts by politicians to "get tough" on asylum in order to appease certain sections of the public and the media have shamefully made a political football of this issue. It has taken some years for the Government to differentiate between asylum, which is essentially a human rights issue, and migration, essentially a social, economic and political issue.
	So what is before us? There are some good things in the Bill—for example, the measures to deal with those who employ people working illegally—but we need to ensure that we have powers to tackle the worst and most exploitative employers, and that we are not simply targeting the employees. Since 1996 the law has provided for the prosecution of employers of workers who are not permitted to work. Clauses 15 and 26 now introduce a civil penalty for employing people who do not have the right to work. In reality, we now have employers who are expected to act as agents for the Government by undertaking stringent checks, thus undertaking the role of policing immigration controls.
	There is a very low level of successful prosecution under the existing offence, which again was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It may be that criminal standards of proof are difficult to obtain, but there is hardly any evidence of more investigations, more prosecutions and more successes. How many enforcement officers are working at present and are there any plans to increase the number? If criminal sanctions have not worked, what difference will a civil penalty make?
	Then there are the bad parts of the Bill. Here I give notice that measures such as the restriction on the right of appeal will receive no favour from us. On the one hand we are told that it is the Government's policy to recruit students from overseas, but at the same time the Bill will remove rights of appeal against refusal of entry clearance from British posts abroad from anyone except people who are applying to visit specified family members, or who are applying as dependants of specified individuals. In reality this means that students, workers, working holidaymakers and ministers of religion will not be able to appeal. Where is the justification? Where is the evidence that points to abuse by these categories of applicants?
	Does the Minister accept the findings of the independent monitor that file samples in 2002 and 2003 indicate that 28,000 applicants were wrongly denied rights of appeal in those two years? The Home Office obviously has a lot of explaining to do. When I sat as a magistrate, I was told that a decision is always better when one is aware that there is a higher authority able to scrutinise that decision. I spoke earlier about the contradiction in government policies. Nowhere is this more obvious than in matters relating to overseas students.
	Let us talk about the Prime Minister's initiative, launched in 1999, to attract 50,000 extra international students into higher education by 2004–05. Then let us look at what the Home Office is proposing in this Bill. Clause 4 will remove the right of appeal for students and others who are refused a visa. Then we have Clause 1, which removes appeal rights in applications for leave to remain. The implications of these two clauses are very serious indeed. Those who have entered the UK legally are turned into illegal over-stayers as soon as their application for a variation or extension of leave is refused. I accept that the Government's new clause prevents them being prosecuted while an appeal is pending against removal, but the reality is that the process outlined and the time factor involved makes law-abiding applicants into unwanted entrants. What an indictment against a country that prides itself on its educational opportunity, which so influences democratic values in other countries. I look forward to the contribution of my noble friends Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire on this issue. More importantly, I am looking forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. Between them, they have repeatedly raised the concern of the academic world and the plight of the universities in attracting overseas students.
	I have repeatedly searched for an explanation and the only case that is advanced is that the "system is overloaded". That was the argument advanced also in 1992. Let me quote what was said then. I thank Keith Best, the director of the Immigration Advisory Service, who was able to find this quotation from a debate in the other place:
	"When a right of appeal is removed, what is removed is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction. That is true not merely of immigration officers but of anybody. The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply, I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/92; col. 43.]
	Those were the words of the then shadow Home Secretary, the right honourable Member for Sedgefield, Mr Tony Blair.
	One matter of serious concern is that the legal aid provisions interact with the Bill. The Government have indicated that they would not charge individuals for advice but would charge advisers. There is a warning from the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Lawyers deciding whether applicants face human rights concerns should not have to gamble on funding decisions. We note that Section 30 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 is amended by Clause 44 and that loans could be made for refugees on limited leave to enter or remain. However, this is of no help to refugees who are likely to be sent back to countries such as Zimbabwe with its appalling human rights record. We often stress that asylum seekers should be allowed to work. Her Majesty's inspector of prisons and others have come to the same conclusion. It seems strange, therefore, that those who work in immigration removal centres need not be paid the national minimum wage. Here is a recipe for the detention centres to employ cheap labour. We should ensure that there are safeguards so that asylum seekers are not exploited.
	We have also stressed the need to repeal Section 9 of the 2004 Act, which denies all support to failed asylum seekers and their dependants. Pilots are being run at present, but local authorities have already voiced their concern, especially around compatibility with the Children Act. We ask for the assurance that the Government will not delay the repeal of that section.
	I come to my concluding remarks. The Government's desire for a single appeal can be achieved using existing powers. It is misleading to say that people will still have a right of appeal against removal when they will have it only when they have left the country. Home Office decision making is often poor. One-third of appeals against refusal of leave succeed, even with the current levels of scrutiny and precedent setting by the courts. Rather than removing appeal rights, decision making needs to be improved and subjected to greater scrutiny The rights at stake are important—the right to be with spouse and children, the right to continue business in which at least £200,000 has been invested, the right to continue employment or a profession, rights to pursue an education or training. The opportunity to do all those things will be lost if people have to leave the country for the appeal against removal to be heard.
	There will be out of country appeals. Given what is at stake for appellants and sponsors, appeals will be lodged from abroad. Hearings in such cases are costly and complex and it is harder to do justice when the appellant is not present in court and cannot give oral evidence. Claims for compensation and redress will arise. Other people, depending on their situation and the country to which they are returned, will effectively be kept out of any appeal by the provisions.
	If the Government insist on taking new powers, then they must redesign the clauses so that there is a broader in-country appeal that anticipates the consequences of removal, and not base their new proposals on an appeal right available only to those who have left the United Kingdom.
	In conclusion, immigration is not just about a numbers game; it is about human beings desperately seeking to improve their lives away from poverty, persecution and despair. We in turn enhance our civilised values by helping them. That is the acceptable face of Britain I want to see.

Benefits Uprating

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a Statement on benefits uprating in the context of the Government's continued fight against poverty, and our ambitious programme to renew our welfare and pensions systems.
	"I shall place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for figures to be published in the Official Report. I can confirm that most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index, which is 2.7 per cent, and most income-related benefits will be uprated by Rossi, which is 2.2 per cent.
	"From next April, retirement pension will go up by £2.20 a week for single pensioners and by £3.55 a week for couples. When we were elected the pension was just £62.45 for a single person—from April it will be £84.25 for a single person and £134.75 for couples. That is a real terms rise of 8 per cent.
	"Next year the guarantee credit of pension credit will rise in line with earnings, so that no single pensioner need live on less than £114.05 a week and no couple on less than £174.05 a week.
	"The threshold for the savings element of pension credit will be uprated so that it remains equal to the basic state pension. This means that a typical single pensioner will now gain from pension credit with an income of up to £158.75 a week, while a typical couple will gain on income of up to £233 a week.
	"Nearly 3.3 million pensioners are now in receipt of pension credit, with an average weekly award of around £43. We are reaching more people and ensuring that they get their entitlements—over 900,000 more households receive pension credit than those previously in receipt of the minimum income guarantee.
	"Following the introduction of pension credit around 2 million pensioner households now qualify for more help, or qualify for help for the first time, with their council tax or rent. And from this week, pensioners can make a single phone call to claim all three of pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
	"By targeting resources at the least well off pensioners, we have succeeded in lifting nearly 2 million pensioners out of absolute poverty. We are now spending £11 billion extra each year on pensioners, with almost half of the extra spending going to the poorest third. If we had instead merely increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, then just over a quarter of that extra spending would have gone to the poorest third—who would have been £30 a week worse off than they are under these measures.
	"On average, pensioner households are now £1,400 a year, or £27 a week, better off in real terms than they would have been under the 1997 system—with the least well off third of households £1,900 a year, or £37 a week, better off in real terms. As well as tackling the dreadful legacy of pensioner poverty, we have also helped all pensioners and will continue to do so.
	"My right honourable friend the Chancellor confirmed yesterday that the winter fuel payment would be £200 for every year of this Parliament. He also announced that he would be setting aside an additional £300 million over the next three years, so that the Government's Warm Front programme can offer pensioner households on pension credit free installation of central heating, and all other pensioner households without central heating a contribution of £300 towards the costs of installing it. He also announced further help with the cost of insulation. I believe the whole House will welcome those announcements.
	"We have now reached the unprecedented position where pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society—a particularly remarkable achievement after a period in which earnings have grown so fast, thanks to the stability and steady growth we have enjoyed in the economy since 1997. We need now to introduce further reform to ensure that our pensions system delivers for future generations of pensioners as it is doing for today's.
	"We warmly welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission's proposals and options published last week, and we believe they are the right basis for the consensus that we need. But there is still a great deal to be discussed and debated about the detail.
	"Yesterday I issued a challenge to the pensions industry. It believes that they can produce an industry-led model that will meet the Turner objective of enabling all people to save for a pension at low cost, but that will outperform the model proposed in the report. I have asked the industry to work up the details of an alternative approach by early February, ahead of a joint national pensions debate event between industry and government, when these proposals can be closely examined.
	"In the same way, as we embark on a major new consultation exercise involving every section of our community, we will be scrutinising the commission proposals and options, and debating the best ways to achieve the objectives that the commission set out and to deliver a lasting pensions settlement.
	"But if we are to meet the challenges of an ageing society and permanently eradicate poverty in retirement, we need also to address the inequalities during people's working lives. That is why our record in tackling child poverty is so important. It is why the Government are committed to supporting families in work and why our welfare reforms and our aspiration for an 80 per cent employment rate are so important, and why we want to see a modern, active and inclusive welfare state.
	"We have lifted over half a million children out of relative low income since 1997. Twenty million people, including 10.3 million children, are benefiting from tax credits. And the child tax credit, which will again increase by earnings, is benefiting six million families.
	"The standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay will be increased by the retail prices index to £108.85 a week. Where the maximum maternity pay and child benefits for mothers at home with their first baby in 1997 was just £2,610 for the first year, it will rise by 2007 to £8,300—a real terms increase of £5,000.
	"In addition, the Work and Families Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday, introduces a new entitlement to statutory paternity pay to enable a father to take time off work and receive statutory pay instead of his partner if she returns to work early. This gives parents greater choice in how they balance their work and caring responsibilities in the first year of their child's life. And for the sixth successive year, I can announce that we are freezing non-dependent deductions to relieve the pressure on low-income parents who are housing their adult children.
	"Work is the best route out of poverty. There are now more people in jobs than ever before—2.3 million more than 1997. Unemployment is at its lowest for nearly 30 years, with long-term youth unemployment 90 per cent lower than in 1997. In just 12 months employment has risen by 330,000 to 28.8 million and is the highest in the country's history. It has risen in every region and nation of the UK. The lone parent employment rate has increased by 11 percentage points since 1997 and there are now nearly one million lone parents in work, while the numbers of lone parents on income support has fallen by over 200,000 since 1997.
	"As my right honourable friend said yesterday, we are not going to abolish the New Deal. We will instead strengthen it, offering learning agreements for teenagers in eight areas of the country; extending the New Deal pilots to help lone parents back to work; and piloting personal action plans for those unemployed for six months or more. Our New Deal for Disabled People has seen nearly 75,000 job entries since its launch in 2001, with 200,000 disabled people helped into work through our total package of New Deal programmes.
	"We are also seeing very encouraging early results from our Pathways to Work pilots. In the first year of the pilots, the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability had almost doubled compared with the same period the year before. Their continued success has driven a significant increase in the proportion of customers leaving incapacity benefit in the first six months of their claim compared with non-pilot areas. Overall, on a national basis, this early success would be equivalent to something in the region of 150,000 IB claimants being helped into work each year.
	"This early success has underpinned our achievements in helping people off incapacity benefit, with new cases now down a third since 1997 and the first falls in the total count—down 41,000 in the year to May 2005.
	"In March this year, our Disability Discrimination Act completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has put in place. It fulfilled our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people and represented a major landmark in enabling disabled people to live independently, fully recognised and respected as equal members of society.
	"Last week, on the International Day for Disabled People, we launched the new Office for Disability Issues. And from this week, the new Disability Discrimination Act 2005 has extended protection from discrimination to another 250,000 people.
	"But we are not stopping there. In January, our welfare reform Green Paper will go further in tackling exclusion from economic activity and independence across the working-age population.
	"In April, we will take further steps in breaking down the barriers that face older workers. The radical tax simplification that comes into play on A-day, as well as reducing the existing regimes down to a single regime, will enable people to draw their occupational pension while working for the same employer. Last year's Pensions Act continues to improve the rewards for those who choose to delay taking their state pension, even for only a short period, and in April we will see the first people to benefit from the new option of a lump sum, which could be worth more than £5,000. And later in the spring our White Paper will seek to lay the basis for a consensus on a lasting pensions settlement.
	"My right honourable friend also announced yesterday the change to the treatment of charitable, voluntary and personal injury income payments in income-related benefits. They are disregarded already in pension credit, pension age housing benefit and council tax benefit. To simplify the system further and encourage the work of charities, they will be disregarded from October next year in assessing eligibility for income support and jobseeker's allowance. There will also be a 52-week grace period for lump sum personal injury payments when assessing entitlement to income support, jobseeker's allowance, working age housing benefit and council tax benefit.
	"This year's uprating continues our commitment to promoting opportunities for the many, not the few. It contributes to our programme of radical reform that balances rights with responsibilities and offers everyone the opportunity to build a decent income for their retirement; and it takes another big step away from the legacy of pernicious poverty which we inherited and which we are determined should never return. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will appreciate the Minister repeating what is usually the most routine, and therefore boring, Statement of the year—one, indeed, that we often do not bother with in your Lordships' House as the uprating of benefits that it contains is done automatically, fixed at September's inflation rate, more or less.
	This year, however, the situation is rather different, and the second half of the Statement, on which there is quite a lot to congratulate the Government, describes not so much uprating as what has been done for people generally in the realm of welfare. I am delighted, for example, at the Government's record on disability. I am delighted that they have persuaded more people to achieve what many years ago I described as the "dignity of work". That is exactly the right approach and what we would expect from any responsible government.
	I go back to the beginning of the Statement. This year, it stands or falls even more than usual behind the Chancellor's anticipation of growth, which only yesterday he was forced to admit would fall from his expectation of annual growth in March of 3.5 per cent to an anticipated 1.75 per cent. That is a cut of exactly one half—close, indeed, to what members of my party have been anticipating for months.
	What is the anticipated inflation rate for this time next year? In a sense, of course, that does not matter to benefit, as benefits remain the same in real terms. However, it matters to those people who exist on a fixed income, mainly pensioners and people on benefit; the point being whether today's fix will see them through until April 2007. Will prices in the shops rise by more than the weekly income that can be covered throughout the year? Or will the Chancellor's cure for the economy be to spend his way out of fiscal trouble, as has been suggested in the papers over this weekend? Instead of inflation being 2.7 per cent, will we be seeing inflation of, say, 4 per cent, as we currently see in the United States, or the 6 per cent or more that we see in the health service? Billions of pounds are being ploughed into the health service, and productivity in no way matches them—productivity which, I remind the Minister, the Chancellor believes, or believed in 1998, is a fundamental yardstick of economic performance.
	Naturally, we are glad to see that pensioners' winter heating allowance of £200 will be maintained for the lifetime of this Parliament. Again, however, what will it be worth in real terms come the election in four years or so? These little gifts to pensioners are all very well, but what of another one which was announced earlier this year: the council tax allowance? I hope your Lordships do not think I am being unduly cynical—cynical, certainly, but not unduly—but was this not a bribe to keep pensioners onside during the election? It may even have worked, although the fact is that fewer and fewer people are voting in general election after general election. For the first time, a majority government in Britain were elected by fewer people than those who could not be bothered to vote: 36 per cent who voted, compared to 39 per cent who did not make it to the polling stations.
	Talking of fixes, both the Chancellor and the Minister believe in credits of various sorts, saying that they are best thing since sliced bread for lifting people out of poverty. Indeed, the Statement spends a long time saying so. They must know, in their heart of hearts, that such credits are not sustainable in the long term, and a much more generous upgrading of basic benefits is needed to obviate their necessity. Only last week, the Minister was at it again in our brief discussion of the Turner report. I am glad that the Statement again praises the Turner report, and that the Secretary of State has asked the pensions industry to work up a series of non-government, low-cost pensions. That was one of the things I asked for last week, although I did so—unusually for me—in coded terms. The last thing that I want is another quango.
	The Government introduced pension credit in October 2003, when nearly 1.8 million households were getting the minimum income guarantee—almost exactly the same number of pensioners that the Government have estimated are not getting the pension credit they are entitled to. As of now, it is expected not only that 70 per cent of pensioners will be getting it by 2050, but that it will cost £39 billion by then, equivalent to 13 pence on income tax. You can get out of this problem over a period by increasing the state pension by earnings, as the Pensions Commission and my party have suggested, rather than the Government's solution of increasing it by price inflation, or 2.5 per cent, whichever is the higher.
	I note that the Statement says that if we had instead merely increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, just over a quarter of that extra spending would have gone to the poorest third, who would have been £30 a week worse off than they are under these measures. Yes, but that is only for a year. We must remember that these things are cumulative. It would be interesting to know how long it would take to get back to normal in the Government's estimation. When will the Government grasp this nettle, especially as it has led to the percentage of pensioners with persistent low income increasing rather than decreasing over the lifetime of this Government? Even that does not deflect from my criticisms of the basic state pension or of pension credit, which it is true to say is indeed increased by earnings. How much longer, though? In a leaked letter to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, the other day, we learnt that the Chancellor cannot guarantee that this will continue. When will it cease?
	The fact that millions of people are not claiming the benefits which are theirs by right helps to balance the books. For instance, in 2002–03, the last year for which the Government have released figures, the Minister's own department estimated that between £880,000 and £1.2 billion in council tax benefit went unclaimed, meaning that between 1.87 million and 2.44 million people missed out on the council tax benefit, again, to which they were entitled.
	The DWP publication, Income Related Benefits; Estimates of Take Up, produced this year, is a mine of information. I am sure that I shall return to it in future debates time after time after time. But, for now, that information proves the previous Secretary of State's statement that the benefits section is "crackers". That is the understatement of the year. The fact is that this Statement does nothing to correct the cat's cradle of chaos and confusion that is today's benefits system.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, although, by the end, I was beginning to wonder as the list of statistics came at us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, we thank the Government for upgrading the benefit every year and are pleased that they do. However, the devil will be in the detail and there will be many occasions when we will be able to debate it in slightly more depth. Today I shall draw attention to just a few basic points.
	I deal first with the provision on which we will probably find the most agreement; the improvement of the delivery systems and the inclusion of disability support. I acknowledge that we have made considerable progress through disability rights and so forth, but we must remember that the process began more than 10 years ago. The whole of Parliament has been pushing for the change for a long time and the whole machinery of government has taken a considerable degree of pushing and occasional kicking to get us where we are now. Well done, but we could have got here quicker.
	Will the Government give us some idea of how they propose to monitor the system as it goes through? The delivery of the system in this area, as in all others, is vital. Some assurances and an idea of the Government's thinking would be very helpful because disability rights is the one area in which arguments will begin: are we delivering what we say we will deliver?
	Moving on to slightly more unusual ground for me, there are interesting increases in the capital disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit and they are welcome. However, when debating these things, I always wonder why we do not have a fairer system of local taxation. I wonder who the net gainer is when there is a rise in council tax and an increase in pensions. That would be an interesting figure to have—one that we could look at and see exactly where the Government are going.
	On pensions generally and the complicated cat's cradle of benefit systems and credits, it would be better if we had a bigger and better basic pension. It would be easier to implement, and the great problem of the non-claiming of benefit would be removed, or at least largely removed, and we would be able to go on. As to the new second pension, I hope that the Government will tell us the maximum commission that may be charged by industry. Even if only 1 per cent of the total pot goes into funding the industry, overall, the pot is there to pay out pensions in the end and it could be dramatically reduced. We could also have another fund mis-selling scandal. I suggest that some information and some idea of the Government's thinking would be beneficial to the House.
	I return to means-testing. I am glad to see that the guarantee of £200 winter fuel payments has been extended. I cannot see why it cannot be extended to the severely disabled. For instance, people who cannot move properly may have difficulty in maintaining body heat through an inability to generate heat from food consumption. They would benefit from an extra heating allowance for the same reasons as the elderly, especially those of more advanced years. I cannot see why we cannot extend the payments. It seems pernickety. It is a very small group. Why are we not doing it?
	To return to a point I made earlier about the delivery systems, in the past couple of days, I have heard that the new computer system is taking longer than the old system to process jobseeker's allowance claims. Indeed, they have gone back to repeating them manually. When do the Government expect to have their delivery systems in place?
	Many more points could be made, but I shall end by saying that welfare reform has an unpleasant history of not being delivered because thinking the unthinkable has proved to be unthinkable. Can the Government tell us what has fundamentally changed in the past eight years?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Addington, for their comments. We have had an interesting tour around a number of issues, including overriding financial policy and electoral turnout at the previous general election, and one or two interesting points, such as NHS productivity, to which I am tempted to respond, but probably should not.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his welcome of some of the work that the Government have undertaken in this area. In the area of disability, he particularly mentioned the dignity of work, which I much appreciate. He then went into the question of financial stewardship. Thinking of the financial stewardship for which this Government have been responsible since 1997, the record is pretty impressive in terms of growth, containing inflation and stability, and we look forward to more of the same in future. I repeat what my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in another place yesterday: we are on course to meet the inflation target of 2 per cent, not just this year, but next year and the year after that. In terms of uprating in accordance with the indexes, what this Government have done is no different from what his government did. I have confidence in what my right honourable friend the Chancellor said.
	On help with council tax, I have already refuted the point that he raised when we debated the regulations. A helpful contribution is being made this year. He knows that no commitment has been made for future years. This matter will have to be considered in due course.
	The noble Lord asked about the sustainability of credits and, in particular, pension credits. First, the issue of uptake is of course important. My department has taken part in an extensive programme to encourage further uptake. We have enlisted the help of Members of Parliament and local organisations but I accept that there is more to do. We have tried to make applying for pension credit as easy as possible. Staff are well trained to deal with pension credit applications. We have adopted a phased and steady approach to taking applications for pension credit. We wrote to all pensioner households. That was supported by comprehensive advertising and media activity to ensure that people were made aware of their new entitlement. I accept that we cannot be complacent and we clearly need to continue to consider that very carefully.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, then raised more general points—this is our third discussion of basic state pension, upgrading, pension credit and the direction of policy in the past four weeks. I cannot say anything more than the remarks that I made in our debate on the pension Statement last week. We are now engaged in a process of discussion with key stakeholders. We will be producing a White Paper in due course. As I said last week pension credit has been an incredibly important way in which we have reduced pensioner poverty. Of course we are looking very carefully at the recommendations of the Pensions Commission, and its recommendation on indexation of basic state pensions is clearly an important part of that. At the same time, we must consider affordability and the benefits of specific targeting. I cannot say much more on that at this stage.
	I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He thanked me for the benefits uprating, for which I was most appreciative. I accept his point about progress on disability issues generally. Yes, we have made considerable progress, but it has taken time and there is a lot more to do and we cannot afford to be complacent. I fully accept those comments. There is no more expert audience than Members of your Lordships' House on disability issues. However, we can look back with some satisfaction on what has been achieved. The work of the Disability Rights Commission will be extremely helpful in monitoring the progress that we are making. I assure the noble Lord that monitoring progress on disability issues in general, and considering the delivery of systems in particular, is of key importance to both my department and the Government as a whole.
	The noble Lord raised the question of the delivery system. We are committed to improving delivery systems. Jobcentre Plus and the introduction of the Pension Service has ensured dedicated services through agencies to groups of people who require first-class services. The establishment of an office of disability issues will ensure that the Government are in a strong position to monitor performance across government.
	I realise that I have gone over the 18 minutes allowed for the three Front-Benchers. Perhaps I may respond to two points raised by noble Lords about the complexity of the system. Anyone considering the benefit system would agree that it is complex. As a new Minister in the department, I sign up to the fact of the complexity of the system without question. The dilemma is this. All Ministers want to make the system simpler, but making it simpler means that it is less sensitive to individual needs. In agreeing to pursue the question of simplicity, we must also have in mind the need to be sensitive to individual need.
	Finally, in relation to the national pension savings fund suggested by the Turner commission, annual management charges were proposed at about 0.3 per cent. In making it clear to the pensions industry that we invite it to come forward we, of course, will have to bear in mind that one of the very strong pointers that the noble Lord, Lord Turner, made is the need for any low-cost pension scheme to keep management charges as low as possible.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the success of the Pathways to Work programme reflects great credit on the Government? But it covers only one-third of the country. What are the problems in expanding the scheme and when does my noble friend estimate that it will cover the whole country?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising Pathways to Work. I visited the pilot in Derby and met members of the public who have, through Pathways to Work, got back into work. I endorse everything that he says about the benefit of personal advice, incentives and encouragement, but I cannot give him the answer to his question. We of course are committed to publishing a paper fairly shortly on that matter, which will contain further details.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will lend me a fiver so that I can buy the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, a drink to cheer him up. He says that this is a boring parliamentary occasion, but nearly £80,000 million or £90,000 million of taxpayers' money is spent. It should be a cardinal feature of every annual parliamentary calendar. I am prepared to take him to the Bishops' Bar to try to cheer him up later, but I might need help with the cost.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I said "usually boring", but I equally said that this was rather different.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: Maybe, my Lords. The simplicity argument has been going on in the department for 20 years to my certain knowledge. Every year at this Statement, Ministers should come to that Dispatch Box and say what they have done in the past year to try to simplify the system. Simply saying that it is all too difficult and that it is rough justice will not do any longer. The changes to the tax regime have been very welcome as far as they went. But it will not do. Ministers should get hold of this agenda and go for simplification in a serious way over a period of time. The House should demand that, year on year, the system should get simpler and not more complicated.
	The Government are right to claim some successes on child and pensioner poverty, which I acknowledge. I also agree with my noble friend when he welcomed this Statement. But there are groups within the benefit cohorts who are losing out systematically. I declare an interest as a non-remunerative director of the Wise Group. People who are merely on jobseekers' allowance and nothing else—childless households or single male adults usually aged in their mid-30s—are being left with next to no help other than training for work in Scotland or work-based learning in England. The Minister said a little about pilots to try to get hold of those people before their six months are up. Will he expand on that because that group has been left behind systematically as the benefits programme unfolds?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on that latter point, the noble Lord raises a very important issue and, perhaps to one extent, answers his first point about simplicity. The noble Lord is absolutely right. I cannot go into the details of the pilots, but I will be happy to let him know as soon as I can. My experience in the department is that the pilots that have been undertaken—we have already referred to the Pathways to Work pilots—have been extremely useful and have enabled us to learn much for detailing future policy. I am not sure that I can afford the request for £5 on a ministerial salary, but I shall do my best. I want to cheer the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, up as much as possible.
	I do not run away from the question about simplicity and I do not suggest either that it is too difficult or that every ministerial colleague occupying my position has come in saying, "Let's make it simpler". I see my noble friend Lady Hollis in her place. No doubt she has gone through a similar exercise. I see also the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Indeed, this is a reunion of Members from the DHSS, the DSS and so on. While of course I accept that we want the system to be more straightforward and simple, there are trade-offs here. We have to be honest and accept that if we go for a much simpler system, there are bound to be more borderline cases where problems can arise. But in looking at the future of the benefits system, of course we want to see if it can be simplified.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I commend the virtues of pension credit for existing pensioners. I am sure that, like myself, my noble friend knows that the lives of many thousands of pensioners have been transformed. Only a few years back, all pensioners had was the £10 Christmas bonus. Pensioners would have to choose between a bag of coal and a bottle of brandy, both of which were designed to keep out the cold. Today the combination of winter fuel payments and the effective minimum income guarantee for pensioners has transformed their incomes. That is greatly to be welcomed.
	Will my noble friend join me in condemning what I take to be the position of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in calling for a basic state pension that rises with earnings, but for pension credit to rise only with the retail prices index, which was the position held by previous occupants of his post? If it were pursued, it would freeze the incomes of the poorest and redistribute benefits and income upwards in a regressive way. Can we hope that the new leadership will not countenance such regressive policies?
	Finally, does my noble friend agree that although pension credit has done wonders for existing pensioners, it is unfortunately too often still perceived as a disincentive to save for those who are not yet of pension age? For women in particular, who may lack a full national insurance contribution record, or for those who fear that they will lose a lot of money through the taper of pension credit—unavoidable if you have an income-related benefit—saving is discouraged in unacceptable ways. Too many people think that it is not worth the doing. Will my noble friend join me in the hope that some of the Turner formulations designed to address this problem will be given a fair wind by the Government?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will have noted with interest her first point.
	My noble friend tempts me down a path which I am reluctant to take for the simple reason that she goes to the heart of some of the arguments raised in the Turner Pensions Commission report. I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that he will know that the commitment to uprating pension credits in line with earnings runs through to 2008. At that stage it will be a matter for the Government to come to a view on it.
	As I have said, my noble friend's point goes to the nub of what the Pensions Commission report is all about. The noble Lord, Lord Turner, specifically referred to the question of savings. My own department has undertaken research in this area and I hope that we will be able to produce a paper in a fairly short time which will lend itself to the thinking on the issue.

Lord Rix: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the winter fuel payment. I do not think that the Minister answered it. The noble Lord asked about the possibility of the payment being extended to those with severe disabilities. All noble Lords who have relatives or know of people with severe disabilities will recognise that they suffer from the cold, perhaps as much as older people; I speak also as an aged person. If it is possible to extend the winter fuel payment to this group, it would be of great benefit.
	I should like to ask one further question. The Government nicked a title from Mencap. We started the system on pathways back into work for those with learning disabilities way back in 1976. I would be interested to know how many people with learning disabilities are actually gaining from the Pathways to Work pilots presently taking place.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should have responded to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about severe debilities. I am afraid I cannot give the commitment the noble Lord, Lord Rix, seeks. Clearly the winter fuel payment is age-related and it has to remain as such.
	I am delighted that we nicked words from Mencap. I am a great supporter and admirer of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on behalf of that organisation. I do not have with me the figures for the number of people with learning disabilities who have already gone through the Pathways to Work pilots and I am not sure whether we have those statistics. But I shall find out whether we have them and, if we do, I shall let the noble Lord know. The principles of Pathways to Work and incapacity benefit reform should apply as much to people with learning disabilities as to any other group of people and I am very clear that we should make sure that that happens.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, on the last point, is my noble friend aware of the remarkable progress that has been made? Page 6 of the Statement states that 200,000 disabled people have been helped into work through the total package of New Deal programmes. Indeed, it would appear from the early results of the pilots that the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability had almost doubled compared with the same period the year before. That is a remarkable step forward.
	As to the Turner report model on enabling all people to save for a pension at low cost—I emphasise "all people"—will my noble friend note that, given the initial sketchy thinking which has come out of the industry, some people are very sceptical that it will be able to meet the Turner criteria? We totally understand that the Government have to be a listening government, but the Turner criteria are quite stringent on universality given the scepticism about the financial services industry which, as all parties have noticed, has grown up in the past decade.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the issue in relation to the pensions industry is that Turner has suggested that the national pension saving scheme should be run as a non-departmental public body, and that a number of funds to which people could be auto-enrolled—ranging from no risk to higher risk but with a default fund—should be set up. The pensions industry has made it known that, rather than funds being run directly by a non-departmental public body, it would be up to the challenge of running such funds. For the purpose of allowing some time between the publication of the Pensions Commission's report and our conclusions, the Government have said to the pensions industry, "If that is so, come forward with proposals and we will examine them".
	This comes back to the basic point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The Turner commission has suggested that the NPSS could be run on annual management charges of about 0.3 per cent. The problem with private pensions in the past—particularly for low earners—has been that the high management charge has eaten considerably into the prospects of a good return. At the same time—again in relation to low earners—the amount of income has not been produced that would make it profitable for the industry to focus its attention on that market. Having a debate, letting the pensions industry consider the Turner commission report and coming forward with proposals seems an excellent way to proceed. We can then judge the results.
	As to the Pathways to Work programme, my noble friend is absolutely right. The latest figures I received about two or three weeks ago show that there have been nearly 20,000 entries back into work as a result of Pathways to Work. That is a very good start.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Second Reading debate resumed.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the prospect of what I think is the fourth piece of legislation in this field since 1999 does not fill me with a huge amount of excitement. I was secretary to the Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility in the 1980s. A succession of Bills came from the other side of the House, and I remember feeling similarly unexcited by many of them. Surely there must be some limit to what we can achieve through legislative means. We need to consider a wider range of matters.
	Those of us who have been thinking about these matters for a long time are aware that, consciously, unconsciously or subconsciously, those who are in politics or in government are responding to public opinion. There is a perception outside that too many people are entering our country, taking away our jobs, or getting social security benefits on false grounds. Those fears have now extended to potential terrorists. All these negative factors which lurk in the background of legislation undermine our capacity as legislators to think about the needs of the people who are directly affected by it. They are often very frightened people, who struggle with our language. They are vulnerable people. Many of them are fleeing tyranny; even more perhaps are fleeing poverty. Sometimes, they have vulnerable children and young people in tow; sometimes, they are on their own.
	I am concerned that we respond to what happens. What happens if you withdraw social benefits from people who are caught up in the system? When social provision has not been made, they sometimes land up on the doorsteps of our churches. Having been scattered across the country, they sometimes land up on the doorsteps of local communities which are not very well equipped to deal with them. As a bishop, I can say to the House that I receive an increasing stream of letters from my clergy asking for advice on how to handle people who are asylum seekers or potential asylum seekers. The other week, some people spoke to me personally in a church. They said that they knew that were not here lawfully and asked what they should do about it. One then advises them to work with their parish priest in dealing with the authorities. They are not very well equipped to deal with these matters.
	If you keep on tightening the law in this area, you might encourage people to opt out of compliance with the system. There is a perception that we do not know how many people are in this country unlawfully and that we should operate the system more tightly. But if the system is perceived as being more difficult, people will walk around the back of it and local communities will again feel the impact.
	This country has a wonderful intellectual and value-based history. Uniquely, we have refused to tear apart what has sometimes been torn apart on the Continent; that is, our Christian-value history and the Enlightenment history in our public life. These two factors have generally held together and provided a moral base for our public life, and, not least, a basis for the very strong systems of volunteering that we have. So our commitment as a free people to justice, transparency and accountability, and our trust in our networks of civil society, are rooted in deep values that we need to hold on to.
	My postbag indicates that the present system is under strain. Officials who are trying to work it are under pressure, which sometimes leads to negativity towards individuals and cynicism about the process. We need higher levels of professionalism; stronger training of those involved in the system; transparent codes of conduct; and a clear commitment to ensure that the same structures of justice are available to people seeking residence in our country as we expect for ourselves. The route to order, control and proper management is via the fundamental principles of a free society seeking justice without discrimination. Then, perhaps, fewer letters might go out to people requiring their appearance before tribunals in English when they hardly speak the language and summoning them to hearings hundreds of miles away without any clue or indication of how they will pay for their travel there.
	Let me try to be specific about the Bill. I was gratified to catch a glimpse that the Government intend, for example, to strengthen the provision to ensure 100 per cent protection of children caught up in the process, not least children on their own. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister how we will progress that. I reinforce what has been said about the needs of international students and how extraordinary it must be to send people back somewhere else in the world to progress an appeal on the duration of their stay. That cannot be right, but if it is true for international students, why not for everybody else? Why do we draw that group of people out for special treatment? If it is not just for one group of people, what about everybody else?
	I note the Clause 52 provision regarding detention and welcome some of the provisions in it. Will the Government report not just on the number in detention but on how long people are held for, who is there, what age ranges there are and whether programmes will be developed for their proper protection when they are caught up in those centres.
	At the heart of the Bill is the desire for a massive reduction in appeals. How does that fit with the principles of justice? Surely we will not leave officials and appointees of the Home Office to be the final point of decision-making on what happens to people. Not only do vulnerable people need and deserve better but our officials also need protection by a proper system of appeal. However good the decisions taken by those—and there is cause to believe that we could do better—it is surely a matter of principle that access to independent systems of appeal is a basic right of every person. I would like to hear more on that.
	I would also like to hear more about the rationale for the provisions regarding terrorism now added to the Bill. Many of us are cautious about interfering with the Geneva Convention and how it states those matters, and we wonder why we need those provisions. Dare I ask the question: what is the evidence that this is an important field for dealing with issues surrounding terrorism? We need proper evidence.
	There are many good features of the legislation. I welcome the style in which the Minister has addressed them. In forming our concerns we must face the human reality that people travel and move around our world. Mobility is part of human life; we must manage it with humanity, transparency and justice.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on two powerful speeches. The Bill contains issues of concern to this House, and many in the education world outside this House will be grateful for the tenacity with which Her Majesty's Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, in both this House and another place, have pursued the concerns expressed by universities and colleges on the Bill's impact on international students. I want to concentrate my remarks on that issue. I declare an interest as chief executive officer of Universities UK.
	I should also like to place on record my gratitude to the Government and to the Minister, my noble friend Lady Ashton, for their equally dogged pursuit of improvements to the immigration system. As a member of the Home Office's joint education task force, I can say that there has been a marked change in the vigour with which the Government are now working with the education sector to ensure that there is a much enhanced dialogue about the way to achieve these improvements. I salute the efforts of my noble friend in that endeavour.
	That positive climate, however, cannot disguise the fact that many in the education sector are deeply concerned about two provisions in the Bill. The first relates to the creation of a one-stop appeal system for leave to remain and variation of leave applications. There is no disagreement about the principle of introducing a simplified system, although there are some differences of view about how that should be achieved. The scheme proposed by the Government would allow unsuccessful applicants to appeal only once they have left the UK. The scheme also risks making unsuccessful applicants illegal overstayers if they learn the outcome of their application after their existing leave has expired. This cannot have been the Government's intention. I cannot believe it was deliberate. I think that the Government have recognised the problem, and I hope that when these issues are debated in detail in Committee an appropriate solution can be agreed upon.
	The other issue will be more familiar to the House. The Bill will abolish the right of appeal for international students, and others, who are refused a visa—or "initial entry clearance", to use the parlance. Universities UK, the Association of Colleges, the National Union of Students, the Immigration Advisory Service, the Council for International Education—UKCOSA—the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the CBI all take the view that this measure is unjust. That point has been made forcefully by both the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but I make no apology at all for making it again.
	Decision-making in entry clearance cases is often subjective, and often wrong. Universities UK has gathered a large number of examples of inappropriate and subjective refusals, all subsequently overturned. To give your Lordships just a flavour, one university told me that an applicant had been refused because:
	"The cost of your tuition, maintenance and accommodation is to be borne by your parents. Funding your education will impose an additional financial burden on them".
	That is a totally inappropriate, subjective judgment. In fact, the student was in receipt of a UK Government-funded scholarship covering the whole of his tuition fees, plus a maintenance award of £5,000 a year. The award letters were submitted with his application.
	Another university cited a case in which a student was told there was "no reason" for her to experience the British education system. She was refused entry because the entry clearance officer also had doubts about her ability to maintain and accommodate herself, despite the fact that she had a grant from her home government to cover all her costs.
	Several institutions have told me about applications rejected on the basis of academic judgment, which entry clearance officers are not qualified to make, and which is not an appropriate basis for refusal. One institution gave the following example:
	"Your proposed course of study is unrealistic because it is inconsistent with your previous pattern of study [and] previous job experience and does not represent a progression in your education . . . and you have been unable to give me a satisfactory explanation for this change of direction".
	The course in question was actually designed specifically to facilitate a change of career.
	I have quoted these examples at some length because I believe it is important that this House understands why the education sector believes that the right of appeal is so necessary. Indeed, although she is unable to be in her place this afternoon, I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone, herself Vice-Chancellor of Greenwich University, would have added other examples, and would have echoed my concerns.
	Yes, there is a point of principle—that the right of appeal is important for reasons of natural justice where there is a possibility that an unfair decision might be made. But just as important, the right of appeal is important in this case and at this time because of the often poor and variable quality of initial decisions in entry clearance cases. We have evidence of that not only of the anecdotal kind which I have just described but also in the form of figures on the number of successful appeals. At the University of Sheffield, 90 per cent of visa refusals are overturned on appeal or before that stage. The Immigration Advisory Service reports at least a 59 per cent success rate. That indicates the scale of the problem. If 90 per cent of decisions are overturned, that means quite simply that a very high proportion of refusals are wrong. Universities, colleges and others protest against the measures in Clause 4. They protest not only because it would be unfair to deprive potential students of the right of appeal when they might have been refused entry for entirely inappropriate reasons; they protest because removing the right of appeal at this time would simply mean that many talented students who might have come to study in the UK will go elsewhere.
	The House has debated the importance of international students to the United Kingdom on countless occasions over the past few years. Those debates have been occasioned in large part by a growing appreciation of the benefits that international students bring the UK and of the increasing challenges we face in maintaining our position as a world leader in international student recruitment. In the context of increasing competition for international students and evidence from a great many institutions of a decline in numbers, the fear that large numbers of students who apply to the UK may be prevented from coming by poor decisions by entry clearance officers with no right of redress is deeply troubling. The Minister in her opening remarks talked of the new points-based system and will no doubt echo the views of the Minister of State with responsibility for immigration in another place that the Government plan to introduce this new system and that will solve the problems with the quality of decision-making. That may be so and indeed I sincerely hope it will be so, but the improvements have yet to be fully designed let alone implemented and proven to work.
	So I believe that Ministers should introduce the new immigration system and demonstrate that it works before legislating to remove appeals. As things stand, the appeals system is a very necessary constraint on a system that would otherwise fail thousands of potential students and indeed fail the universities who seek to attract them. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to reconsider.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for reasons which this brief speech will unfold. I speak in this debate under false pretences and I need to get them off my chest immediately, though on the ill-wind principle the debate will be a little shorter because of them.
	There are varying motivations to speak in Second Reading debates. One such is the intended, as against unintended, consequence that everyone outside interested in the subject will put you on their individual mailing list for briefings in anticipation of the remaining stages, let alone the Second Reading. Thanks to the admirable synod of interested parties assembled for collective briefing by Amnesty International yesterday under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Anelay, who opened this debate so admirably on behalf of the Official Opposition, I now already have a sheaf of briefing papers from at least 10 sources. So the motivation I mentioned a moment ago for speaking was satisfied even before this debate began.
	Less felicitously, I managed to leave my locker keys at home this morning, so every piece of paper that I possess on today's subject is immured in the Library corridor, and it is temporarily beyond my power to recover it. When I say, therefore, that I look forward to Grand Committee stage, a phrase with which one often concludes a Second Reading speech, I do so on this occasion with unusual feeling. My remarks at Second Reading will thus be brief.
	I said that it was a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, as she and I used to spar two decades ago—she, acronymically, on behalf of the AUT, myself on behalf of the then HMG in general and the DES in particular. Twenty years later I declare an interest as Pro-Chancellor of the University of London, though I am not speaking on its behalf today. But the issues of the Bill as they affect universities were accurately and initially identified by my noble friend Lady Anelay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has just amplified them. I shall not repeat what either of them have said, relying instead on the 18th century speech, following a characteristically comprehensive speech by Edmund Burke in the Commons, when the next speaker simply said, "Ditto to Mr Burke".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, invited me in the Summer Recess—I quote this anecdotally to indicate what lies ahead of us in Grand Committee—to chair a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference on the very subjects that we are discussing in the Bill. The meeting was inadvertently a little less well advertised than it might have been but a roomful assembled to hear the vice-chancellor of Liverpool, a senior spokesman from the British Council and a shadow home affairs spokesman from the Official Opposition Front Bench in the Commons, and in that hour there was never the faintest likelihood of our running out of questions.
	I doubt if we shall run out of questions in Grand Committee either, especially, if I may say so to the Minister, against the background of Her Majesty's Government ostensibly supporting the further recruitment of foreign students by British higher education institutions. We shall welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, to that same Grand Committee. This is, I believe, the fourth Home Office Bill now running simultaneously, if not concurrently, in your Lordships' House. The Minister has admirably earned the reputation by her performance on past Bills that objective referees on other Benches will always give her the benefit of the doubt on the Treasury Bench, whatever she chooses to say. But she has a further advantage on this Bill: she is potentially less personally embarrassed than are some other Ministers on these subjects by words used in earlier debates, which I fear will haunt the Treasury Bench during the remaining stages of the Bill.
	I come to the Bill with the unique experience of Conservative MPs in the 1997 Parliament of having held an inner-city seat with a major immigrant and asylum-seeking population. Indeed, before 1997, I had what might be described as "form" with the Whips in another place on this species of legislation. I am not suggesting that Her Majesty's Government are less competent on these matters than the administrations of other countries. In the late 1960s I had to wait 10 months for a green card to work in the United States, during which I had to assure the American Embassy on behalf of my youngest one year-old son that he had never, at least as yet, lived off immoral earnings.
	But that negative qualification of not being worse than others is not enough for this country. In the Soho part of my former constituency there were in 1685 no fewer than 16 Huguenot churches. We pride ourselves on the haven we provide. Such pride demands that our legislation should be the best rather than in the middle of the pack. I am sure the same ambition applies to Her Majesty's Government. But on one of the other Home Office Bills going through Parliament—the Terrorism Bill—the Home Secretary rolled the wicket to opposition Peers in the Moses Room by saying that there had been adequate time to discuss that Bill in the Commons. I do not think the Government can make the same claim on this Bill, at least as yet, as to the amount of time available on Report in the Commons to discuss the new material that the Government introduced at that stage. Just as we are not likely to run out of questions in Grand Committee on higher education issues, so we are not likely to run out of subjects on other aspects of the Bill. I reiterate, from my documentless present, my anticipation of future debate.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, one of the advantages of specialising primarily in international issues is that I manage to avoid long and complicated Bills, particularly their Committee stages. I intervene in this Second Reading debate to touch on two matters: first the impact on students, which has already been raised by several speakers, and, secondly, to raise some questions on the international context. I, of course, declare an interest as a former member of staff at the London School of Economics who came into this issue when my own students complained to me about the imposition of student visa charges. I stress in particular that there is a problem for students who study for advanced degrees, which, according the regulations of the University of London, shall take between three and six years to complete. It is not easy to design nice, neat student visa lengths and requirements to go home to renew their grants if the students have flexible degree time that require considerable amounts of research. Such work often contributes to the research base of this country, particularly in the sciences.
	There are clearly underlying contradictions in government policy, which we have seen on previous occasions, between the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, which Ministers have admitted to me in private. The economic cost to the Government of administering the student visa system, narrowly defined, is emphasised. The economic value to Britain is often easily put to one side. My noble friend Lord Dholakia has already mentioned the contribution that staff and students from abroad make to British universities. They make financial contributions, contributions to research and, I have to say as a university teacher, to the quality of education which the rather parochial students we often have in this country get from being forced to defend their view of the world in the presence of students from many other countries.
	In this country we are extremely proud of the quality of British higher education. It makes a major contribution to Britain's invisible earnings. Indeed, on one occasion the London School of Economics won the Queen's Award for Export Achievement. The global ranking of British universities is outstanding compared to all other universities except for those in the United States. I should draw the Minister's attention to the Shanghai index on the world's social science institutions, in which, I regret to say, the London School of Economics was ranked only second.
	That suggests that we should be careful about damaging our ability to recruit top-class students from across the world. I wish to emphasise in particular students from China and south Asia. South Asia now provides extraordinarily good students, particularly in electronics, engineering and elsewhere but we are conscious that in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India the pressure on entry clearance officers for applications is intense and the likelihood of mistakes being made is high. We all recognise that there is a problem with the abuse of student visas and of overstayers, but we need to go beyond the idea that one system fits all.
	Applications from people who have been accepted by language schools and newly founded colleges appear to be treated in the same way as those offered places by top quality universities, after extensive investigation of their qualifications by the application officers concerned. That seems idiotic. Entry clearance officers should distinguish more clearly between institutions that have accepted students, and they should take the quality of the institution and the likely care of examination of the applications into account. The experience of the London School of Economics was that in the half a dozen cases last year when students were refused entry on first application, all their appeals were successful. In one case, the student had been refused because of mistakes made by the entry clearance officer in assessing the documentation. He had suggested that there were anomalies and inconsistencies in the applicant's father's bank statement, which on further investigation was shown not to be the case.
	University international offices do a great deal of work on this and there should be common ground between the Home Office, the DfES and the universities out of which we can reach agreement. University international offices, application offices and entry clearance offices could find a way to work together which would avoid damaging British universities. I am confident that common ground is to be found here, and I look forward to negotiations, if necessary.
	I wish to raise one other question about the Bill—the absence of context on the international dimension. Immigration policy is, after all, essentially international. However, the assumption in the Bill appears to be that Britain still retains absolute sovereignty and that there is little need to co-operate with others. With great difficulty I found the clause—Clause 39(1)(d)—that refers to co-operation with,
	"any other foreign law enforcement agency".
	Immigration policy depends entirely on co-operation with other states. Furthermore, the United Kingdom is already caught up in an extensive and formal framework for co-operation on immigration matters with other states—in particular, within the European Union—which includes extensive and formal exchanges of information.
	For three years, I was chair of Sub-Committee F of the EU Committee. I recall the discussions that we had about Britain's formal opt-out from the Schengen convention and our informal opt back in to many of its clauses. I recall the existence of at least four common European databases, including Eurodac, the shared fingerprint database. I think that we should be told how far the provisions on fingerprinting in Clause 28 will provide or allow for fingerprints on file to be shared. We should be told with which other states they will be shared and under what conditions—I assume that in a number of instances they are likely to go on to Eurodac. Whether or not we need to amend the Bill, we are at least entitled to much more extensive information on all this. How widely shared will this information be and under what conditions and what constraints?
	My other puzzle relates to Clause 60. As always on matters that refer to the geographical extent of the United Kingdom, it is deliberately obscure and ambiguous. I am sure that noble Lords will immediately recognise the meaning of subsection (2). The clause states:
	"This Act extends to . . . an amendment by this Act of another Act has the same extent as that Act or as the relevant part of that Act".
	I think that means that where the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have opted in to other bits of other Acts, they are allowed to opt in to the relevant bits of this Act and they can cherry-pick in opting out of the other bits as they like. Clause 60(3) goes on yet again to repeat the timeworn formula:
	"Her Majesty may"—
	but not "will"—
	" . . . direct that a provision of this Act is to extend, with or without modification or adaptation",
	to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I want to mark again that on matters of immigration that is a fairly extensive hole in the Bill, when the number of people who travel in and out of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is growing as fast as the number of those who travel in and out of the United Kingdom. Your Lordships should not allow that to go through unremarked as these odd opt-ins and opt-outs so often do with parts of the British Crown which are not apparently part of the United Kingdom.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. I look forward to being provided with much more information on exactly what the Bill implies in terms of the sharing of information with foreign governments. I certainly hope that during Committee there will be some useful exchanges about how we may resolve the question of good students applying and being denied because overloaded entry clearance officers may have made mistakes.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister to the new asylum Bill. She will provide relief to her colleagues who have survived so many already. I hope that she will give a clear answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. As her right honourable friend said, it is high time that the Government consolidated these Bills into one piece of legislation.
	This Bill feels different from its predecessors. The political climate changed after 2001, and public attitudes have moved on accordingly. There is less tolerance, and a new wariness. While I accept, in general, the need to tighten immigration controls, and especially to curb the agents of illegal migration and trafficking, I cannot agree with the continuous erosion of our appeals process, and the ignoring of internationally accepted detention rules. The blurring of lines between guilt and innocence is made even worse by the terrorism clauses, which I suspect will be opposed vigorously by Peers in Committee.
	We think of ourselves as a tolerant society, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, have reminded us. Asylum seekers in any society, however, incur more envy and insult than admiration—unless, of course, they win the Nobel Prize, or demonstrate the economic benefits that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, described. There is certainly no sign of a presumption of innocence, even in our own country. I remember that in Thailand, Sudan and Lebanon, many years ago, refugees and those helping them were bitterly resented. The UN had to take account of this, and sometimes fund local groups as well. The host country argument continues to be, "Aren't you lucky just to be here? Why should you expect any more from us?". This attitude is still alive in the UK, although it is more subtle and subconscious.
	That is why the 1951 convention lays down an obligation on the host country, recognising that incoming refugees or asylum seekers are the ones who have made the sacrifice, and not we, the recipients. We still have to learn lessons of hospitality in this country, especially in a climate of anti-terrorism which is bound to affect innocent refugees and migrants. In public transport, we are now advised to look more carefully at our fellow passengers and treat people with more suspicion. Minorities suffer when the majority feels threatened. The Government cannot claim just to be housekeeping when they tighten controls—they are also responding to a perception of threat, albeit from a tiny, invisible minority. In scrutinising this Bill, therefore, I hope that we will keep that in proportion.
	I have spent some time looking at detention, specifically the position of detainees in our so-called removal centres, and have some experience of Haslar and Oakington. The number in detention is rising, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said. Information about detainees seems to be declining, and proper access to professionals is becoming more difficult. There are fundamental issues, such as time limits, presumption of liberty at bail hearings, written reasons for detention, and lost identity documents, all of which have been in previous Bills and remain a cause of concern. I am sure that they will surface in Committee. If we have to tighten the rules, let us simultaneously maintain and raise standards. The prison inspectorate visits under Clause 45, although long expected, are a welcome addition to the Bill.
	At Oakington last month, my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and I were well received and impressed by the quality of some of the skilled staff. We were underwhelmed, however, by the official attitudes within a detention estate, the managers of which range in experience from private contracting firms to the Prison Service. No one seems to care much about its future.
	Oakington is, or was, by immigration standards, quite a grand facility, much trumpeted during the last Bill as the Government's fast-track showcase. However, it is now operating at half capacity, with only about 130 inmates staying, in most cases, for very short periods. It has suffered much criticism in the media and successive inspectors' reports for elements of racism and the inappropriate detention of children. My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, who was not able to stay for the debate, wanted me to mention that unaccompanied and unaccounted for minors—now in the care of social services in Cambridge and many other towns under the Children Act 2004—are becoming a serious cause for concern. His suggestion is that some responsibility should be laid on area child safeguarding boards. This has been discussed in previous debates on safeguarding children. I hope the Minister will take note of what he said then.
	The management at Oakington has been engaged in remedial action much too late, since it is to close within months to make way for new development. No wonder enthusiasm is so muted and its performance obviously impaired. Detainees are shunted around like footballs, I was told. A Congolese woman, recently bereaved, had already been two days at Tinsley House and one day at Yarl's Wood before reaching Oakington. That is three centres in a week after suffering a serious experience. Torture victims are supposed to be screened by the Home Office, but some still reach detention before they are properly referred. There are others less fortunate. I heard of a recent case of a Jamaican refugee, a victim of gun crime, who was refused and removed to a certain death. Because of the speed of fast-tracking, we do not know the details of these cases, but we know that the system is imperfect and that the detention estate is failing them.
	On the positive side, the buildings are good and the involvement of health services and refugee agencies on the whole excellent. The inspectors have recognised this. But the Minister must agree that things are not working out and we are entitled to know what is in the Government's mind. It was impressed on us that conditions at Yarl's Wood are much worse than at Oakington—that is no reason for confidence—and that some of the best practice learnt at Oakington, such as the generally good relations between the legal NGOs and the managers, is already being lost before it can be transferred elsewhere.
	Coming to the Bill, I am concerned about the new five-year policy. If conditions improve in the home country within five years, refugees are expected to return. In my view, that is a new category of refugee. I understand that no legislation is needed for this policy. Yet five years of uncertainty gives refugees a less settled status than those who had indefinite leave. What will be the criteria of safety? The Bill refers to the cessation clause—1(c)(5)—in the 1951 convention. But the expert opinion at the High Commission for Refugees says that changes in the country of origin must be fundamental.
	There must also be serious concern about the monthly rate of removals, which is now supposed to exceed the rate of unfounded applications. We have already heard that reducing the caseload at this speed will affect initial decisions even more. Maximising returns through fast-tracking leaves insufficient time for legal representatives and for the adequate presentation of cases. I question the Minister's statement that the Government are in a "better position" with fast-tracking.
	Other measures under the Bill, such as stronger border controls, fingerprinting, electronic checks and more pressure on employers, present problems for NGOs and lawyers because there is a greater overall risk of criminalisation. Others have already mentioned Clause 52. There are further restrictions in the rights of appeal and many people are concerned about the variation appeals, especially in the case of students, under Clause 1. The Constitution Select Committee will look at appeals and the use of secondary legislation and will report before the Committee stage.
	I hope the Minister will recognise that, while strong feelings may be expressed, there is still considerable room for compromise by the Government when they give serious consideration to amendments, remembering that we are a complementary House and that many of these issues were not dealt with in Committee in the other place.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this Second Reading debate and want to pay particular attention to the section of the Bill dealing with employment. Let me say at the outset that I understand that any government must have in place policies to deal with large numbers of immigrants, whether they are seeking asylum or economic improvements. However, it is essential that migrant workers are protected from exploitation.
	The provisions relating to employers' sanctions are aimed at preventing the use of illegal labour. I welcome the intention to crack down on rogue employers, thereby hoping to protect migrant workers. We have to remember that we are often dealing with poor, desperate and vulnerable people. They are willing to work for low wages, and are frequently not aware of health and safety requirements. They may be in debt to the traffickers who brought them here, and may send part of their earnings home to families who are also very poor. It is not good that migrant workers should become a reservoir of cheap labour. It tends to keep the level of wages low generally. Indeed, the director of the CBI recently remarked with some satisfaction that immigration reduces what he calls "wage inflation". That is not good for labour relations or race relations. So I am surprised that there is not much in the Bill about the need to ensure that employers comply with the minimum wage. There ought to be stronger inspection to ensure that they do.
	As to the sanctions contained in the Bill, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has expressed concern that employers will effectively become enforcers of immigration control, and the threat of civil penalties, as well as the requirement repeatedly to check documents, will act as a disincentive to employers hiring foreign nationals, including those who are well documented. The council believes that the measures, although well intended, could drive undocumented workers underground and prevent them accessing essential public services, thus increasing poverty and social injustice.
	The council urges consultation on a regularisation programme for undocumented workers, based on residence in the UK. The Institute of Employment Rights, of which I am a member, has suggested that those who can demonstrate a two-year presence in the UK through employment or other means should have the right to earn regularisation through a tiered process. That could begin with the right to temporary residence and work permission, and eventually lead to a right of settlement, provided such people demonstrate participation in the formal workforce and co-operation with immigration control. A scheme of this kind is worthy of consideration.
	I recently received a letter from a man who has been in this country since 1990. He came when he was 20 years old. He says that he has worked here and paid his taxes and that this country is his home—he knows no other—yet he is facing a court hearing later this month to determine whether he can stay. I have replied to him saying that, while I wish him well, I have no influence in such matters. It does seem unfair that an individual with such long residence here should still have no security and should still have to attend court hearings to establish a right to remain.
	There is another aspect of trafficking to which there is little reference in the Bill. I refer to the trafficking of young women for the sex industry. I am sure that most people were glad to learn of the recent police operation that was responsible for the arrest and eventual imprisonment of an Albanian gang that had brought very young women here with promises of good employment and had then forced them into the sex industry, where they frequently had to service up to 20 men a day. There have been a number of such cases, and it is an absolute scandal. One is glad when the criminals responsible for it are caught. However, what happens to the women afterwards? Many are very young, really children. They will have suffered appallingly. They should be covered by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is often not appropriate for them to be deported back to their country of origin. They could be victimised by members of the criminal mafia responsible for their misfortunes in the first place, or their community might treat them as dishonoured. Rehabilitation and care should be available to them in this country.
	Finally, I am concerned about the provisions of Clauses 53 and 54. They deal with the deprivation of citizenship and the deprivation of the right of abode. In both cases, the Secretary of State may, by order, deprive a person of the right to citizenship or the right of abode if he thinks such deprivation is conducive to the public good. I appreciate that there are genuine concerns about terrorism, but deprivation of the rights referred to in these clauses is a very serious matter indeed. The test to be applied seems to be very vague. This is an issue that should be explored further in Committee. Appeal also has to be looked at again in Committee, as has already been mentioned by a number of speakers in this debate. I welcome the opportunity to make these points at Second Reading and we will clearly have to have further discussions about them in Committee.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a member of the Council of University College, London. That gives a clue to what I shall speak about. By rights, at this stage I ought to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Brooke and say, "Ditto", but the desire to have my brief remarks on record is too great. Even though four noble Lords have spoken much better than I can, I still want to say my little piece.
	The universities are strongly opposed to the removal of the right of appeal from international students. At this time when all our universities are trying their best to attract students from all over the world, this will have a very damaging effect. How damaging it could be cannot be overstressed. As it is, we are losing ground in the world market. Now we have this, and we have to see how it will affect students who want to come here. Government statistics show that 25 per cent of international students who appeal against visa refusal are successful. The Immigration Advisory Service reports that 60 to 75 per cent of visa appeals that it handles for international students are successful. I suggest that if even 20 per cent of appeals are successful, it is right that there should be a right of appeal.
	The Home Office has suggested that unsuccessful students can simply reapply, a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anelay. We know that once an application has been refused, a reapplication will be looked at in a totally different way. The stigma of refusal will be on the papers, which will not only create a problem for a person coming to this country, but will affect a person's ability to go to other countries.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, made an important point about the ability of entry clearance officers to judge cases. That also worries me. Many years ago, when the Conservatives were in government, the right of appeal by short-stay visitors was taken away. At that stage, I made the point that we leave everything to the entry clearance officers who are the final arbiters of a person's fate. At that stage, it was agreed to introduce a monitor who would call in 10 per cent of files to see whether there was fairness, conformity and so on. But that is not good enough for students because calling in files to see whether the entry clearance officer has acted properly will be too late for most students.
	Some so-called institutions in this country are nothing but a letterhead. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, touched on this point. We know that they run rackets. It is a racket that so many students come here and pay so much. The students do not start off on the road to coming here as migrants, falsely stating that they are students. They believe that there will be a course for them to attend. They come here, having paid £1,000 or £2,000 in their country of origin, which is an awful lot of money for them, but they find no course and no institution, except a letterhead or an address that is just an address. The point has been made that all the institutions in this country are not the same. If a student has applied to a reputable institution and has been accepted, surely that student should not be subjected to any problems. We need people from other countries in our universities.
	For so long, we have been influencing other countries through the people who we send back having been educated here. They take central positions when they return to their countries. I know that, coming from India. That has been happening for decades—centuries, even. It is extremely important that that sphere of influence that this country exercises is not lost. I hope that the matter will be looked at carefully. Clearly there is consensus on how damaging the provision will be to universities, but also to other further and higher education institutions. It will also be so damaging for students who want to come here. There may not be other places to which they want to go. I hope that the Minister will look at this carefully. I know that she is well versed in education issues and I am sure that this overlaps with her personal concerns.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, would like to address issues relating to the higher education sector. I should declare an interest as having been an academic for most of my life and still being a visiting fellow at the University of Sussex. I want to speak specifically about issues relating to students in Clause 1, which will remove the right of in-country appeal for international students who are refused extensions to visas; in Clause 4, which will remove the right of appeal to international students who are refused visa extensions; and in Clause 11, which will remove the rights of those whose leave to remain expires while they are applying for a visa extension to remain in the UK until consideration of the application has been completed. Those issues have already been mentioned by several noble Lords, notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick.
	It is important to recognise how many applications are involved. In 2004, 51 per cent of the applications for appeal came from students; 30 per cent of all international students need to extend their visas for various reasons. Many of them need to do so because they are writing PhDs and need more time to complete their study. As my noble friend Lord Wallace, said, the length of time taken to write a thesis in this country is relatively variable, we hope. Our research councils put a lot of emphasis on completion within three years, but many students find it difficult to complete their research study and write it up within three years. Four and sometimes five years is a usual time for students to take to write a PhD. It is not predictable in advance. For that reason, students have to apply for extension to their visas when that happens.
	Many students come here initially for further education, to complete access courses for higher education and then want to go on from a further education college to a university and, again, need to apply for an extension to their visa. Sometimes a student wants to stay on for a graduation ceremony—for a matter of only three months or so. It is a little hard to have to go home and apply from their home country to come back for graduation. Sometimes students' initial visas are too short. Many students coming over to do PhDs are given only a one-year visa because it is thought that it is more appropriate for them to do a masters degree. Many universities require a masters degree as a preliminary to going on to a PhD. So there are natural reasons why students need to change or extend their visa requirements.
	I understand that the aim of Clauses 1 and 11 is to create a one-stop shop in the system of appeal. In the first place, such appeals must be made outside the UK and, secondly, those whose leave to stay expires while they are in the process of applying immediately become illegal overstayers, with all that that implies. As an illegal overstayer, when they leave the country, their passport will be stamped. It will be on record that they have been an illegal overstayer and that will prejudice any future application for a visa. So it is a "Catch 22" situation.
	Clause 4, which will remove the right of appeal for all international students on initial entry clearance, with the exception of when they are visiting families or dependent relatives, again presents a difficult issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, gave several graphic instances of the subjectiveness of decisions made by entry clearance officers. The briefing that we have been given by Universities UK lists several other cases. She cited two personal cases that had come through the UUK system, but there have been cases where the entry clearance officer said that they did not believe that the student had applied for an appropriate course of study; where the entry clearance officer doubted that the student would complete the course or return to their home country; where the entry clearance officer believes that the cost of the course is not commensurate with the benefit that the students will receive; where the entry clearance officer believes that the cost of the course will impose an additional financial burden on the student's family—a case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—or where the entry clearance officer does not believe that the course is appropriate for the student.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, all those things are highly subjective. We hope that the process by which entry clearance officers judge those things will be improved. We are told that they are being trained and that it will be a much improved procedure. They have already been roundly criticised by both the National Audit Office and the independent assessor for how the system operates. We hope that they improve their procedures, but it is idealistic to think that their procedures will overnight move from being so subjective to being 100 per cent right. Indeed, in the other place, the Minister concerned, Tony McNulty, admitted that 100 per cent objectivity was a fool's errand—it cannot be. Why are we denying those students what I would argue to be natural justice? They should have the right of appeal.
	We recognise that there have been difficulties with some institutions—the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned this—that set themselves up as institutions of higher education, language colleges, or whatever. The Minister should recognise that bona fide universities have no objection to quality assurance processes being required. When universities of high quality say that they have a PhD student who needs an extra six months to complete a PhD, why should that be doubted by the Home Office? Why should it doubt the word of our universities in that way?
	I echo what has already been said. International students in this country give us a great deal. They help to provide the diversity, the liveliness and the vivacity of our higher education institutions. They bring in a great deal of income for our higher education institutions. The Government are fully aware of that. With the Prime Minister's initiative in 1999 to extend the number of international students, we have been successful and have been celebrating our success in bringing in more international students. But a combination of increasing visa charges, imposing very tough requirements on visa renewals and applications, and denying what seems to be natural justice, will not attract foreign students to this country. Some noble Lords have mentioned that we are falling back and losing students from China and south-east Asia. Knowledge of what is proposed in this Bill has already spread among international students. It will go through the international student grapevine and will do us no good whatever. These clauses should be amended and I hope that they will be.
	Finally, as someone who does not normally speak on Home Office Bills, I now find myself wearing my higher education hat involved with two Bills—the Terrorism Bill and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. On both counts, there is great tension between the traditions of our traditionally tolerant British society, which over the years has provided a haven for refugees from many persecutions—from the Huguenots, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to those fleeing Hitler's death camps in the 1930s. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said, because travel is so easy we have many people knocking on our doors who come from much further afield than before. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate: we should aim to treat people from other countries as we would expect to be treated; we should accord them natural justice; and we should treat them with openness, transparency and humanity.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I support the policy of managed migration that underpins this Bill. However, the introduction of a new system where appeals will not be permitted will clearly create enormous problems that will have serious consequences that the drafters of the Bill had not thought about. Examples of serious consequences were brought to my attention with considerable passion in the past two weeks when I met members of the Chinese community—in particular, people working in the food catering industry and overseas students. I think that this is the first time that the Chinese community in Britain has come to Parliament to object to a government Bill. Clearly, the proposal to remove the right of appeal before improving the quality of decisions for visas to enter and remain in the United Kingdom is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, putting the cart before the horse.
	I am particularly concerned that Clause 1 removes the right of in-country appeal for workers in Chinese food catering and for students from China and south-east Asian countries who are refused extensions to existing visas. Clause 11 removes measures which ensure that applicants whose leave expires while they are making an application for an extension to their visa or appealing against the refusal of such an extension can legally remain in the United Kingdom until those processes are complete. The disadvantages of those two clauses have been well described and probed by a number of noble Lords. Clause 4, which removes the right of appeal for applicants wanting to work in the Chinese food industry in Britain and for students from China and south-east Asian countries who are refused visas to enter the United Kingdom, is yet another clause for contention.
	I turn now to the employment of foreign workers in food catering. The Chinese food catering industry began in the 1960s and 1970s when people from the New Territories in Hong Kong were invited to set up business here. That led to the development today of about 10,000 takeaway food shops and 5,000 Chinese restaurants. I understand that, together, they make an annual contribution of about £1 billion to Her Majesty's Treasury. That significant contribution to the national economy is in danger of being wiped out if this part of the catering industry is dismantled by the effects of this Bill.
	Clause 23(2)(b) gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a discrimination code of practice to ensure that employers do not discriminate on racial grounds when they apply the new law on employment of immigrants. The clause also gives the Secretary of State the right to consult,
	"such bodies representing employers . . . [and] such bodies representing workers",
	as he sees fit under this code of practice. In view of the large number of Chinese and other ethnic-minority-owned small businesses in this country, will the Secretary of State undertake to consult representatives of, for example, Chinese employers and Chinese workers in respect of the code of practice?
	Many Chinese food outlets and restaurants now change hands because their owners, who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, have reached retirement age and their children have no interest in food catering. Noble Lords may be familiar with Ofsted reports which state that more than 70 per cent of Chinese children have obtained five good GCSE grades for the past decade. Almost all Chinese children attend universities or higher education colleges. No more than five in 100 have chosen to work in restaurants or food catering for almost two decades.
	In 1987, I conducted a survey of Chinese teenagers on Merseyside. Only five of the 110 children I interviewed wanted to work in food catering, although 98 of their parents were in Chinese food businesses. My report was given to the regeneration agencies that were involved in the renewal of Merseyside. The same findings have subsequently been reported in London, Manchester, Glasgow and Belfast. In 1997, the Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities in Britain found that one in four Chinese men and women possess a university degree. That further reduces their interest in working in food catering.
	Because no more than five in 100 Chinese food outlets are taken over by the children of the original proprietor, most of them are sold—mainly to Chinese people from abroad. Usually, the person interested in buying the business comes from China, Hong Kong or south-east Asia and works in that outlet for a year before deciding whether to buy it. As the value of the small business is less than £200,000, these people need visas to work here.
	The removal of settlement rights under the five-tier points system will also make the United Kingdom unattractive to workers and prospective proprietors. High-skilled workers currently have a maximum of five years to remain in the United Kingdom without a break. The new Bill will break up that leave to remain into two parts of two years and three years. Therefore, high-skilled workers take a high risk when they decide to work in the United Kingdom because they are very unlikely to be able to settle here. Low-skilled workers will have no settlement rights and their family cannot join them. It is likely that workers in the food catering industry will be classified as low-skilled workers.
	If the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill is passed, it could herald the death of the Chinese catering industry in the United Kingdom. When it is fully implemented, the only outlets to remain open will be expensive establishments vying for Michelin star status in our major metropolitan cities, particularly in the West End of London.
	I turn now to Chinese students from China, Hong Kong and south-east Asia. As other speakers have said, our universities consider them a significant group of international students that supply brains and finances to support our academic achievements. Ministers are aware that China currently provides between 70,000 and 90,000 students to the United Kingdom. But the increase made earlier this year to visa fees has deterred several thousands from coming, a point which has already been reported. A group of such students met me recently. They also complained that as legitimate visa holders, they seemed to be the only students on their campuses who, on arriving at their universities and checking into temporary summer accommodation, have to report to the nearest police station. They told me that no other groups of overseas students have to do this. That further sours their experience in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister may wish to consider this practice.
	The implementation of Clauses 1, 4 and 11 will further reduce the number of overseas students. This will happen at a time when we know from the Independent Monitor of UK visas that the average refusal rate for student visas is 32 per cent—double that for non-settlement applications in 2003. There are 16 posts around the world that have refusal rates for student applications of more than 50 per cent, with a total refusal rate of 73 per cent from Kathmandu. Some 89 per cent of UK refusals are made for the reason that students are not studying at degree level by the time they intend to leave at the end of their visit or they will have completed their studies. An average student visa interview lasts for 10 minutes and the overall success rate on appeals made by the Immigration Advisory Service on behalf of students was 38 per cent in 2002–03 and 49 per cent in 2003–04.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the issues I have raised.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I apologise to the House in advance for my absence from the Chamber at the conclusion of this debate due to a longstanding commitment.
	The stated aim of the Government's strategy on asylum and immigration is to create a "fair but practical system of controls" for migration. I wholeheartedly support this aim. However, I have some reservations and concerns in relation to a few clauses in the Bill.
	This is the latest in a line of immigration and asylum Bills introduced over recent years. Each has removed important procedural safeguards for people seeking asylum in the UK or trying to migrate here. That trend is continued in the current Bill, which promises to limit even further the already restricted application and appeals process. My concerns about this aspect of the proposals have already been expressed by other noble Lords, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and Liberty.
	I want to concentrate on Clauses 53 and 54. I do not believe that the provisions on counter-terrorism and their likely impact on minority ethnic and religious groups have yet received sufficient attention. The Government introduced the relevant clauses in Committee in the other place. There was very little time available for a proper debate. I hope that your Lordships will thoroughly scrutinise these clauses during the passage of the Bill through this House.
	Since the terrible events of 9/11, we have seen an alarming tendency to treat counter-terrorism as a question of immigration control. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, for example, sought to address the threat from international terrorism by creating a discriminatory power to detain foreign nationals believed to pose a threat to national security. Similarly, in response to the tragic events in London on 7 July, the Government focused on the need to "secure our borders", "extend powers to strip people of citizenship", and to,
	"refuse asylum to anyone who has . . . anything to do with opposing repressive regimes and could be perceived as being involved in terrorism anywhere in the world".
	My concerns about dealing with counter-terrorism and immigration in this manner are threefold. First, immigration measures fail to tackle any threat from terrorism posed by British citizens. Secondly, in practice these measures are likely to have a disproportionate effect on minority ethnic and religious groups. They are likely to marginalise certain sectors of the population and may ultimately be counter-productive. Thirdly, removing from the UK those who are suspected of involvement in international terrorism is not an effective way to address the threat. Rather than seeking to export the problem, those suspected of committing terrorist acts should be prosecuted in this country.
	Clause 53 would give the Home Secretary the power to remove a person's British citizenship where satisfied that this would be "conducive to the public good". Will my noble friend tell us why this sweeping power is needed? The Home Secretary can already strip a person of their British nationality if satisfied that they have done something,
	"seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom".
	As far as I am aware, this power has never been used. I am particularly worried that, in practice, this clause would have a disproportionate impact on ethnic and religious minorities and that it could appear to be an anti-Muslim measure. As a result of international events, social inequalities and legislative proposals, many young British Muslims already feel disenfranchised. These proposals would only compound those feelings, making their "Britishness" seem like a temporary state, removable at will, rather than a permanent part of their identity. This could seriously damage community relations which are already very strained, and ultimately prove to be counter-productive.
	Can my noble friend explain how the Government intend to deal with dual nationals, those who have dual nationality with another country on the basis of their parents' or grandparents' birth, if those countries refuse to accept such people? How do the Government intend to deal with the descendants of Anglo-Saxon members of our community, for instance, if they become involved in terrorism?
	The Bill will also require a very restrictive interpretation to be made of the definition of "refugee" in the 1951 convention. The interpretation here goes far beyond the meaning given in international law. People who have a well founded fear of persecution could be denied refugee status in the UK as a result of this provision if they had carried out acts of committing or even encouraging acts of terrorism. "Terrorism", for these purposes, has the extremely wide definition set out in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As we have seen in the context of the Terrorism Bill, it goes far beyond the ordinary meaning of "terrorism". Not only does it apply to the use of physical violence to achieve an end, but it also covers damage to property and disruption to electronic systems wherever they occur in the world. Under the Bill, these acts would not even be required to constitute a criminal offence in order to justify a denial of refugee status. If a person could not be prosecuted for their actions in the UK, we should not use those actions to deny them asylum.
	Yet again we are being asked to consider legislation which seeks to appear,
	"tough on terrorism without being tough on the causes of terrorism".
	As I said previously when debating the Terrorism Bill, I do not believe that this approach,
	"will yield long-lasting peace and community stability".—[Official Report, 21/11/05; col. 1468.]
	In fact, I fear that it could have the opposite effect.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, earlier speakers have tried to count up the number of Bills we have had on this subject. My tally is that Conservative governments since 1987 have produced four and Labour governments have produced a similar number, including this one. So that makes eight Bills in 18 years. One might think that the Home Office imagines that immigration and asylum issues can be solved by legislating. Surely it would be better to improve the administration of what must always be a complex and sometimes controversial subject. The training and continuity in service of those who deal with individual cases should be the permanent priority, and here I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
	As regards the protection of refugees, I have said before—and I do not hesitate to say again—the prime consideration must be the quality of the first decision about their status. If this is right first time, everything else falls into place. Wasteful appeals are avoided, while resettlement and rehabilitation can start without delay. If interpretation of foreign languages is needed, this must be of the best quality. If asylum seekers receive correct advice before interview, their cases are far more likely to be well presented. Interviewers should be people free from political or media-inspired prejudice, who are capable of understanding the horrifying experiences through which asylum seekers may well have passed. Their aim should be never to reject as many applications as possible. On the other hand, they should reject an automatic culture of disbelief. Now that immigration for employment is possible, the number of bogus asylum claims should decline.
	Turning to the Bill, who was consulted during its preparation? Did the Home Office seek the views of the London office of the UNHCR? Were the Immigration Advisory Service, the British Refugee Council, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and the Independent Monitor of Entry Clearance consulted, together with others having daily case-work experience? Were the universities asked about visas for students? If the views of such groups were not given full weight, how can we possibly expect to have a sensible and workable Bill which will not require further amendment in a year or two?
	It has long been intended that failed asylum seekers should be returned to their countries of origin. The situation in the country in question governs whether or not this is possible. Quite often the real situation in such countries is unclear or changing, especially in vast countries such as the Congo. The situation even at the airport may be the most critical one. There is scope for much better liaison between the Home Office and the Foreign Office. The recent court judgment about returns to Zimbabwe shows the need for an independent source of country-by-country assessment and advice. Canada has such a system and the Immigration Advisory Service and others have been calling for something similar here. What are Her Majesty's Government doing about this?
	The Immigration Advisory Service, an organisation with 35 years of experience and with 20 or so offices in Britain and overseas, has described the Bill as "misconceived and inappropriate". The IAS has commented on 13 specific points. How many of these do the Government accept? I take most seriously the risk that people who have entered legally will be put into limbo. This will occur when they are refused an extension but are perversely encouraged to stay here in order to appeal against a removal notice. During that interval they will be unable either to work or to receive benefits. This limbo is comparable to the plight of those caught by Section 9 of the 2004 Act.
	Clause 52, concerning terrorism—which is defined not in this Bill but elsewhere—and its interaction with the new Terrorism Bill will require very careful thought. So will Clause 53 on deprivation of citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, was quite right to emphasise these points. Given the apparent lack of consultation prior to the Bill, your Lordships will have to work very hard to assert best practice and to deal with the reasonable concerns that we are raising today. I therefore urge the Government to provide sufficient time at all stages of the Bill.
	I join with other speakers who have welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, to this subject, which is perhaps slightly new to her. She has shown on previous Bills that she is very capable of listening. I hope and urge that she will be willing to negotiate on particular points.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, in my short contribution I shall concentrate on the crossover between this Bill and the Identity Cards Bill. They contain many common features—for example, biometric testing.
	I have tabled an amendment for next Monday on the Identity Cards Bill, which provides that:
	"The Secretary of State, before making an order containing any provision for compulsory registration, must consult on whether, and the extent to which, this requires him to regularise the status of foreign nationals residing in the United Kingdom without entitlement to remain".
	I shall return to regularisation in a moment.
	On the general relationship between the two Bills, I made some inquiries about where I might usefully table the amendment from a technical point of view. The steer I tended to get when I approached the issue from the point of view of the Identity Cards Bill was that it was more in the territory of the immigration Bill; and when I approached it from the point of view of an amendment in the immigration Bill, people pointed me in the direction of the Identity Cards Bill. I am sure that the left hand and the right hand will be able to hold hands, as it were, in the near future.
	The central point of the problem of the crossover between the Identity Cards Bill and the immigration Bill is that none of us knows how many of the 500,000 illegal immigrants are expected to be caught by these provisions. Leaving aside the example given by my noble friend Lady Turner of someone who has been here for donkey's years, running a business or whatever without the right to remain, surely we need some criteria—a procedure or something—to avoid the presumption that all 500,000 people will be asked to go and live somewhere else. Although that is not within this Bill, the build-up of all these tests is clearly and deliberately putting a lot of pressure on certain people and we need criteria with which to regularise their position.
	That will come about even before any question of the compulsory stage of the Identity Cards Bill. As we know, the scheme will mean that free public services can be used only by people with identity cards. People will not be forced to carry the card, but they will have to register for a card using biometric data. There will obviously be quite a lot of concern about how all that will tie together in practice.
	It was asked earlier today in relation to a Starred Question how easily the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act would sit with the regularisation in a certain way of people under the gangmasters arrangement. Some of the trade union officials whom I know, such as the National Farmers' Union, as well as employers and the food processing industry have worked hard to make credible the rules governing the regularisation of the position of people employed by gangmasters. We have only to look at the case of Morecambe Bay to know that many of those people are in a position that has parallels with that described by the noble Lord, Lord Chan.
	Regularisation may yield more in tax and national insurance to the public purse than it will cost in enforcement. There is a trade-off to be weighed in terms of how much the detention and removal of the average illegal immigrant costs. The Government's role is arguably to weigh these factors, but there is a risk of the inspection regime fuelling the informal or black economy. The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act was a response to the horror of Morecambe Bay. We know that many people's net wages are in the same sort of territory. The events of Morecambe Bay led to a demand, widely supported in Parliament, for the position to be regularised, because it was a totally unacceptable method of employment in modern Britain and gave workers no rights.
	The informal economy might enjoy a competitive edge by attracting labour which legitimate business will be deprived of if identity and inspection regimes turn migrant worker status into a problem for employer and employee. I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The CBI, for once, is wearing its hat as being against too much regulation. However, we want regulation to meet legitimate business benchmarks, and not to ask employers simply to be policemen and to make them somehow criminally liable if they are not. Perhaps the Minister will put me right if I have got that wrong.
	I am not approaching this in any spirit of general opposition—on the contrary—but this crossover of legislation needs to be looked at. If the Government want to be seen to be bringing more people into the formal economy, that could be an important consideration.
	Regularisation is a potential weapon in the arsenal of national security. It brings more people within the scope of regular immigration control, using a carrot as opposed to a stick, and aids national integration and equality strategies by recognising people's economic contribution and giving them an official stake in UK society.
	In conclusion, I am not calling for a general amnesty for everybody who is now in the country full-stop. However, perhaps I may dabble with the word "amnesty", because it is not a very fashionable word. We do not want to put an unwanted question mark over many hundreds of thousands of people, and there is no crude arithmetical answer to the question of who may stay. You cannot say that if you are worth more than £10 million and you have been here more than 10 years, it is okay. We will have to give a lot more thought to the criteria.
	I finish where I began. Before making an order containing any provisions for the compulsory registration of people under this Bill or the Identity Cards Bill, the Secretary of State must consult on whether, and the extent to which, this requires him to regularise the status of foreign nationals residing in the United Kingdom without entitlement to remain.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to her role on this Bill. My remarks will be confined to the clauses that appear at the end of the Bill in a section that is rather disarmingly entitled "Miscellaneous". These are the so-called "counter-terrorism" clauses. I was grateful to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, on them. They were dealt with by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and Related Matters, which was published yesterday. I am a member of that committee and I shall refer to the report's conclusions.
	These amendments were tabled in Standing Committee in the other place. I shall comment first on the procedure followed in introducing them. Since they were put forward as an amendment to an existing Bill, there was no ministerial statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act. The Explanatory Notes accompanying them do not comment on the human rights impact. As the Minister has made a statement of compatibility in introducing the Bill in this House, I should be grateful if she could indicate why she thinks these clauses are compatible with the Act, particularly when she considers the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the comments of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and many other groups.
	Clause 53 will introduce a new test for the deprivation of a person's British citizenship. Under the law as it stands, the Secretary of State can take away British citizenship—although I understand that this power has hardly, if ever, been used—if he is,
	"satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a British overseas territory".
	Also, of course, the decision to take away citizenship cannot make the person stateless. In practice, therefore, the deprivation of citizenship can apply only to people with dual nationality, but including those who are born British citizens.
	Clause 53 will widen substantially the basis for this deprivation of citizenship. I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on this point. Instead of the wording that I have just quoted; that is,
	"satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial",
	the basis for the Secretary of State to deprive a person of British citizenship will be that he is,
	"satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good".
	According to the Minister who spoke in Committee in the other place, the decision whether deprivation is in the public good will depend on whether the person has engaged in any behaviour that appears on the list of "unacceptable behaviours". Does "conducive to the public good" depend on whether one of the "unacceptable behaviours" has been engaged in? The House will know that this list of unacceptable behaviours guides the Home Secretary in exercising his discretion to exclude and deport non-nationals, and that one of them is the highly controversial act of "justifying terrorism". As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has explained, the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 is very wide, and applies to acts committed anywhere in the world.
	So many concerns have been raised about the width of this definition in the other place and in this House that the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been asked to undertake a review of it. At Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill in this House, the noble Lord said he had agreed to do so and added:
	"I have been given nearly a year to look at eight lines of text".—[Official Report, 21/11/05; col. 1436.]
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights also looked at the definition for its report. We concluded that it was unacceptably wide, and recommended that the definition be changed. Deprivation of citizenship is a serious matter. It has a profound impact on the person so treated. According to the Joint Committee's report, the human rights implications of this deprivation could involve the right to be free of inhuman or degrading treatment; the right to liberty; the right to respect for family life; and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter one's own country. What this Bill therefore proposes is that people shall be deprived of their citizenship and subjected to many possible infringements of basic rights, if they are deemed to have justified terrorism using a definition of terrorism that it is agreed is unacceptably wide and needs reviewing.
	Of course there is a right of appeal, and the House may feel that is a good safeguard and protection against arbitrariness. However, it is not so reassuring when one sees how difficult it will be to appeal when the Home Secretary need only be satisfied that the deprivation of citizenship is conducive to the public good, and there is no requirement that there be objectively reasonable grounds for his belief. The Joint Committee points out in its conclusion that the new Clause 52 gives rise to a risk of incompatibility with Articles 3, 5, 8 and 14 of the European Convention, as well as Articles 12 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
	The points I have made on Clause 52 also have some relevance to Clause 53, which provides for the deprivation of right of abode from certain Commonwealth citizens. Although in the case of Commonwealth citizens with right of abode there is a statutory appeal to a body with full jurisdiction, in the end the same considerations apply—in particular, and here I quote the Joint Committee's report,
	"the legal uncertainty caused by the width of the current definition of unacceptable behaviours".
	The provisions of the new Clause 51 raise serious human rights problems. The clause lays down a new interpretation of the refugee convention. Article 1F of that convention sets out the categories of people who have ruled themselves out of getting international protection as refugees. Article 1F says you do not deserve international protection if you commit a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, or if you have done,
	"anything contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".
	The new Clause 51 proposed by the Government will include within that definition acts of committing, preparing or instigating terrorism, and acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism, whether or not the acts themselves amount to an actual or "inchoate" offence. That may sound eminently reasonable until we remember, first, the definition of terrorism being used here, and, secondly, that it covers acts wherever they are committed, whether in Uzbekistan, North Korea or perhaps Burma.
	I cannot do better than draw to the attention of the House the view of the Joint Committee of Human Rights on this issue:
	"To redefine the scope of Article 1F(c) exclusion so as to catch anyone who has threatened damage to property as a means to political change anywhere in the world, and anyone who in the Secretary of State's view has engaged in one of the unacceptable behaviours such as 'justifying' terrorism, is in our view to broaden the scope of the exclusion in Article 1F(c) in a way which is not itself compatible with the Refugee Convention".
	It seems to me, although of course I am not a lawyer, that advocating the overthrow of a repressive regime—for example, that in Uzbekistan—and supporting a move to another form of government such as democracy is enough to ensure that you will not get the protection of the United Kingdom, should you be able to flee before the secret police get you. In my view, that is a deeply shaming position for us to find ourselves in, and a long way from the haven for the Huguenots mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville.
	The position is not improved by the provision in Clause 7 that requires appeals against deportation on national security grounds to be brought out-of-country. The Joint Committee considers that the failure of the new clause to preserve an in-country appeal on asylum grounds gives rise to a risk of incompatibility with the refugee convention.
	I have one more question for the Minister: how do the Government propose to reconcile the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in reviewing the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act with the plans to use that definition straight away across such a wide range of new legislation?

Lord Laird: My Lords, several concerns have been raised about the impact of Clauses 1 and 4 on international students. Universities UK and other groups, including the Immigration Advisory Service; the National Union of Students; the Council for International Education; the Association of Colleges and others, are opposed to measures that would abolish rights of appeal in entry clearance cases, and where students have been refused leave to remain.
	The objection is twofold. First, it is felt that it is manifestly unfair to remove a right of appeal when the decisions taken, particularly in the case of initial entry clearance, are frequently found to be wrong or inappropriate. Secondly, it is feared that the removal of this appeal right would add to the impression already created by a number of recent measures relating to visas, that the United Kingdom is making it harder to obtain a visa to study in the UK.
	Universities have asked the Government to reconsider, particularly the measures in Clause 4. They point to evidence that it is becoming harder to attract international students, and that many of our universities are experiencing a downturn in international student recruitment. They also point to the enormous benefit international students bring.
	In the context of Northern Ireland, these issues are particularly pressing. The Queen's University of Belfast and the University of Ulster are both seeking to increase the number of international students they attract. That is important not only in terms of income from fees, but also for the contribution such students make to the intellectual resource of the university. In Northern Ireland the student population is largely homogeneous compared to other regions of the UK, so international students add much to the diversity of the student body, which is beneficial not only to the university but also to the wider community.
	Economically, the intellectual capital that international students represent is particularly important to Northern Ireland. As in Scotland, where the Government have recognised the need for skilled inward migration and helped to achieve that by focusing on attracting international students through the "Fresh Talent" scheme, Northern Ireland needs international students to help us achieve economic development. So in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, this is the wrong moment to be putting barriers in the way of the efforts of our universities and colleges to recruit internationally.
	The Minister may argue that this is not what the Bill is about, but there is compelling evidence that if the right of appeal is abolished, hundreds and thousands of students will be turned away as a result of bad decisions by entry clearance officers. The evidence is that decision-making is so variable and frequently poor that the system badly needs the safeguard of an appeal mechanism. I shall give one example from Northern Ireland but I am sure the House will hear many others this afternoon. I am told of a student who applied from Cameroon to study at an English language school in Northern Ireland and was informed:
	"You have further stated that you intend to study this course in Northern Ireland so that you can also improve your English. If this is your aim and English is not your first language, I do not find it credible that you would choose a school in Northern Ireland to do these studies".
	The student was refused a visa in August this year. The case was brought to the attention of the Northern Ireland Department for Employment and Learning. The case was passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a response. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied by admitting that mistakes had been made and that the entry clearance officers were wrong to make judgments about the suitability of particular regions for particular courses. I am told that this is not an isolated example. Indeed, the impression that it is not is borne out by the report published in February this year by the Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance, who said:
	"In relation to students I have found both in 2002 and 2003 that ECOs are effectively adding a number of additional requirements under the auspices of the requirements of intending to leave at the end of their studies and being able and intending to follow the course set out in the Immigration Rules. Specifically I find it unacceptable that students should be refused because they have not studied a subject in their own country/should have studied the subject more recently; because they could study the subject in their own country more cheaply; because in the opinion of the ECO they should study in a third country rather than the UK; because they do not 'need' to study and because they have failed to obtain a level of proficiency in their own country by studying there. All these reasons proliferate".
	In the light of these examples I have some serious concerns about the abolition of students' right of appeal, given that the entry clearance officer's decisions continue to be made on what appears to be an arbitrary and subjective basis.
	I understand that the Government hope that the introduction of a points-based immigration scheme will improve decision-making. I hope so, too. But the Government should bring forward plans to abolish the right of appeal in such cases when and only when they have proved that the safeguards offered by appeals is no longer necessary because no one is wrongly refused a visa. At the moment, appeals are very necessary to the credibility and fairness of the system. I hope the Government will think again.
	There are other concerns about the Bill—specifically the way in which Clause 1 operates. Clause 1 aims to create a one-stop appeal system in leave to remain cases. There is no objection to that. But the way in which the Government have chosen to achieve this will mean that a large number of unsuccessful applicants for leave to remain will become illegal over-stayers through no fault of their own and as a surely unintended consequence of the way the Bill is drafted. I hope that we will have time to examine this measure in detail in Committee and that the Government will address the problems with the current drafting.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, started this debate four and a half hours ago by entering a plea for consolidation. In that she was echoing the advice that we have been given by the Law Society, and that was the implication of several of the speeches we have heard this afternoon, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who said that this was the eighth measure that had been introduced since 1987. I was trying to calculate how many there had been since 1971 when I came into the House. It would certainly run well into double figures. When we last discussed the subject of consolidation, on the 2002 Act, I made an amendment partially to consolidate the 1971 Act and in particular Schedule 2, which has been patched and altered in most of the Bills since then over the years and is now to have a little more of its cornice knocked off in the repeals under this Bill.
	The Minister who replied then, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, recognised that the case had been made out. He said that he could not proceed until,
	"the whole reform package has been perfected and put together".—[Official Report, 15/7/02; col. 1075.]
	That means that it will be put off for ever. I hope that when the Minister replies this evening she will be able to give us a little more assurance on the time scale for consolidation. In particular, she might be able to say whether the consultation has begun with the Law Commission, which would be the first step towards consolidation. Would the Government be prepared to agree to the consolidation of Schedule 2 if I tabled that amendment again as a first step towards a more comprehensive exercise?
	Every commentator from outside this House, including those who addressed your Lordships upstairs yesterday evening, has been unanimous in their criticism of the reduction of appeal rights. We all know about the disastrous effect that the Bill would have on the ability of the universities to sustain their intake of good overseas students. In particular we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, but she is by no means the only one to have majored on this theme this afternoon. I want to quote only one letter which I received from Ms Helen Bagshaw, who is a student at Balliol College and pointed out to me—and I think that these were the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—that 25 per cent of student appeals against refusal of entry clearance in 2003 were successful and that where the applicant received professional help from the IAS in conducting the appeal, the success rate went up to over 60 per cent. But it is not only students who suffer from the low quality of initial decision-making on entry certificates. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, gave us an extremely good example in the case of the Chinese catering industry.
	This low quality has been highlighted by the National Audit Office and the independent monitor which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Sharp. The monitor, who addressed us upstairs yesterday evening, said that the use of subjective criteria, inappropriate reasons for refusal and frequent misinterpretation of evidence presented by applicants was a problem. Yesterday, she also said that it was very unlikely that entry certificate officers who were dealing with 40 cases a day, having very little guidance and insufficient training, would attain a good level of fairness and efficiency. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, in her current report of February 2005 she points out that 28,000 people had wrongly been denied rights of appeal in 2002–03 under the existing system, and her advice to Parliament was to consider this when, as she correctly anticipated, consideration was given to whittling down the rights of appeal still further.
	The one concession that was dragged out of the Minister, Tony McNulty, in another place was that the removal of appeal rights would not come into effect until the points system was fully in place, except for people under tier 1, the equivalent of the present Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. The new points scheme is not in the Bill, but it is not the simple single scheme that has been advertised. I also hope that the Government will find time to debate the report of Sub-Committee F, which did not find that points schemes were inherently superior to work permit systems and said that they were not best at meeting labour market needs because employers may not find what they need among people who are admitted because they possess some general set of attributes, rather than the specific qualities that are sought under the work permit system. Conversely, more people having a particular skill may be admitted than are needed to fill the jobs in the favoured categories. Until we see the small print we will have no way of knowing whether the subjective judgments of ECOs, and therefore the propensity for error in the system, will be reduced by the new scheme.
	My noble friend Lord Dholakia made specific mention of the evils that have resulted from Clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act. I wish that my noble kinsman Lord Russell was still with us because I am certain that he would have had something to say about the need to rescue families trapped in destitution as a result of the creation of a new category of "failed asylum seeker with family". The research which is now being conducted by Barnardo's demonstrates that Section 9 is wholly incompatible with the Children Act 1989, that the families affected did not understand the process, and that local authorities felt it was an attempt to shift the burden from the IND to local budgets. My noble kinsman said that the protection of the weak, in one of the 17th century phrases he always had ready to hand, was,
	"the keystone which closes up the arch of government".—[Official Report, 26/4/04; col. 659.]
	We shall do our best to restore that keystone, with a virtual plaque on it to his memory.
	The appearance of Clause 51, which arouses the concern of UNHCR as a,
	"skewed and imbalanced interpretation of the exclusion clauses",
	of the convention, reminded me of the debate we had on the order designating a very large list of offences of varying degrees of severity as being "particularly serious" and therefore automatically such as to exclude a person from being considered as a refugee under Article 33(2) of the convention. The UNHCR guidelines on interpretation require a high threshold to be placed on the interpretation of Article 33; that each case should be assessed individually on its own merits, and that there should be proportionality between the offence and the consequences of a refusal of asylum. Now the Government, having got away with breaching the guidelines on 1F(b), which excludes those who committed serious crimes from consideration as refugees, apply the same logic to 1F(c), which, as we have heard, deals with acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, even though the Minister admitted that we had never been obliged to admit someone to the UK as a refugee because we lacked this provision in our law previously.
	We are greatly indebted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has once again come up with important warnings just in time, and it is right about the iniquity of Clause 53, which allows somebody to be deprived of his British citizenship, even if born here, if the Secretary of State thinks, for example, that something he has said "justifies" terrorism. There are similar objections against Clause 54, under which a person may be deprived of his right of abode where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be non-conducive to the public good, a test which under the 1971 Act has never been subject to proper judicial review.
	Regarding Clause 52, which was dissected in some detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, although the Security Council has indeed said in Security Council Resolution 1373 that acts of terrorism are contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations, the Government define "terrorism" according to the 2000 Act, extending to any act of violence against persons or property anywhere in the world. The encouragement or inducement of others to commit, prepare or instigate such acts, whether they were actual or threatened, would also bring the individual within 1F(c). This is not the restrictive interpretation required by UNHCR, and it would have caught many heroes of the past, from Harry Hotspur to Cromwell, Garibaldi and Kossuth through Adam von Trott to Nelson Mandela, Isaias Afewerke, Meles Zenawi and John Garang. All those were freedom fighters who would have been debarred from the protection of the convention if this clause had been in operation. We agree with the JCHR that in the context of this Bill a narrower definition of terrorism is needed, and the offences to be covered should be actual rather than inchoate.
	Finally, the UNHCR commends the Government for the arrangements being made for the inspection of detention facilities, but it deprecates the absence of an automatic right to a bail hearing, for which the Government made provision in Part 3 of the 1999 Act, but then reneged on in the 2002 Act. In fact, Clause 45 merely puts the chief inspector's existing role in detention centres, short-term holding facilities and escort arrangements within the scope of the Prison Act 1952, another area of the law in desperate need of consolidation. As has been said, the chief inspector does a fantastic job, but her periodic reviews of whole establishments do not remove the need for judicial review of individual detentions. The Refugee Children's Consortium drew our attention to the growing number of children in immigration detention—75 at the end of September, compared with 35 on 17 May 2004, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in a previous debate in response to an amendment of ours on the treatment of claimants Bill. He rejected our proposal for a systematic assessment of the needs of children in detention because the number was trivial and the vast majority were held for very short periods. But since the number has doubled over the intervening 18 months, and we still have no idea how long the children are being held, we need much better oversight of what is happening, and I hope this time round we shall be much firmer with the Government.
	On detention generally, although its purpose is said to be the facilitation of removal, one of our witnesses told us that the number being detained was twice the number being removed and that although the number of asylum seekers in detention had gone up to 1,695 two weeks ago, that had not resulted in a proportionate increase in removals. So the propensity to lock up asylum seekers has increased, and one of our witnesses upstairs said that it was a case of filling all the bed spaces available. On Sunday I spoke on the telephone to Miss Amanda Sibiye, a Zimbabwean who has been in Yarl's Wood detention centre since 8 April, and on hunger strike in protest against her detention since the beginning of November. She has lost 10 kilograms and the doctor from the Medical Foundation who examined her last week recommended that she be transferred to hospital, but the authorities declined to do that. A system that holds people in custody for eight months and ignores medical advice to release them is manifestly in need of regular judicial oversight, and we hope that if the Government are not prepared to implement Part 3 of the 1999 Act, they will come up with equivalent safeguards for vulnerable asylum seekers being held in detention indefinitely.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this has been a most interesting if concise debate where strongly held views have been expressed with conviction. I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to the six sections of the Bill which both she and the Explanatory Notes explain build upon the five year plan published this February and the Government's strategic plan published in July last year.
	As many of your Lordships have indicated, there is a hint of "Groundhog Day" when it comes to immigration and asylum Bills. As noble Lords have pointed out, this is at least the fourth Bill this Government have presented in eight years. One would have hoped that the system could have been made simpler, clearer and more robust through these past Acts, thus making further primary legislation superfluous. Instead we are faced with a situation where the number of failed asylum seekers is growing at a much faster rate than the level of deportations, with only one in 15 being deported last year. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that four hours ago my noble friend Lady Anelay called for a clearer way through this legislation. The debate today has shown that we are not on that clear way yet.
	Be that as it may, it is clear that there is support for the main thrust of the Bill across the House. The debate has, however, highlighted important issues that need to be thrashed out in Committee on a Bill that the Refugee Council claims,
	"doesn't really address the fundamental problems of the asylum process".
	I welcome the Minister's recognition that migration presents undeniable benefits to this country—of that there can be no question—and that the Government want to maintain the valuable contributions that overseas students make to our education institutions. We expected a strong showing from the universities' apologists and we have not been disappointed. It was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who spoke on this issue in depth as a representative of Universities UK. I am sure it is a subject close to the hearts of the various university chancellors in this House.
	As such, I will not reiterate what has been said, but I hope that the Minister's remarks will indicate that we may work together towards a workable solution to our concerns, with the Government proposing changes to the appeals process and the knock-on effects that there might be on foreign students.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, my noble friend Lady Flather and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have all spoken about the one-size-fits-all problem and have highlighted the very considerable differences in different cases. We must all sympathise with the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, and the implication that the English spoken in Northern Ireland is not the real thing. Some have called the changes to appeals hasty, and as my noble friend Lady Anelay has already highlighted, they will occur before the Government have implemented their containing points system, let alone assessed its success. That is the cart before the horse criticism. While we are pleased that the Prime Minister has altered his views on appeals since 1992, we will push the Minister to explain in detail in Committee the proposed alterations to the processes. We will also raise the need for improved quality of decision procedure in asylum and immigration cases. A strong case has been made here and in the other place for the retention of in-country appeals in some specific categories. I hope that the Minister will continually have before her the reproach of the high level of statistics of successful applications from those appeals.
	The tragedy at Morecambe Bay last year brought the attention of the public to the problem of people employing illegal immigrants. There was an interesting contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. It is a problem that all sides of the House have condemned. However, as my noble friend Lady Anelay has stated, the sanctions to tackle such exploitation are already available under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. We need to look at why those measures have not been used and whether the Government-proposed changes will have a better, fairer and more efficient effect. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we do not want to inadvertently increase discrimination in employment. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, gave a most informative account of the demography of the Chinese community as businesses change. I hope that the Minister will address the criticism that he made about the need to report to the police and whether that is a unique problem for that community.
	Finally, the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, spoke about has come at a most timely point in this debate. I hope that we will hear some comments from the Minister on that, possibly tonight, but certainly in the later stages of the Bill. The debate has been marked by an almost wholly contributing and constructive spirit and a real will to improve this very difficult but absolutely basic subject. I look forward to the Minister's remarks.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. A number of noble Lords referred to whether this is the fourth, fifth, or sixth Bill introduced by the Government in this area. I had done for me a summary of previous immigration, asylum and nationality legislation going back to 1971. I would be happy to share my summary with noble Lords who have been involved, as I found it extremely interesting. Noble Lords will appreciate that while for many of them it may be their fourth, fifth or sixth Bill, it is my first Bill in this area. I hope that I bring a reasonably fresh pair of eyes to it, but it does mean that once again I am at a huge disadvantage to the experience that there is in your Lordships' House.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I did not steal his locker key, although I now think that it probably would have been a good idea. There is a degree to which I felt that I was coming home as I listened to the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with whom I spent many a happy hour debating education, my noble friend Lady Warwick, who is a good friend to me, although I recognise that I have caused her some difficulties with this legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others. I take very seriously the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. I will endeavour to answer his points, if not this evening, in correspondence with him. He made me feel hungry during his contribution.
	I am sad that I was not invited to the meeting upstairs. I hope that the organisations which discussed these issues with noble Lords will do me the honour of discussing them with me too. It is important as I take this Bill through its stages in your Lordships' House that I get the benefit of their input in the way that other noble Lords have.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as the person who was invited to chair the meeting—and we had responses from around the House—I am disappointed that the Minister's office did not pick up the invitation, which was put on the Whip for all Peers. We would have welcomed her presence, and no discourtesy was intended towards her.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, none was taken. Perhaps in another sense it is sometimes easier to have some discussions without the Minister being present, and I appreciate that too. However, I should like to meet the organisations, and perhaps through the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others, I can put that invitation to those organisations. I would welcome their contributions.
	I am grateful for the cautious welcome—but none the less there it was—to the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I thank them for their kind words. It will be a privilege for me to do business with them in seeing this Bill safely on its way and recognising the important contributions that have been made. I have already said that, as always, I will reply later to any points that I fail to answer in my response— some because I simply do not have the answer and others because I am conscious of time and of not keeping your Lordships unnecessarily. Some clear, overarching issues have come to light. There is the whole question of in-country appeals, their scope and their process. Particularly relevant to your Lordships' House, not surprisingly, has been the whole question of students. A range of issues have come from those concerned about the employment clauses and the details of those clauses dealing with terrorism. Other issues raised include Europe, detention issues and children. I will try to deal with as many of those as I possibly can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about consolidation of this legislation. I gather that my colleague the Minister in another place said that there was a case for consolidation, a point to which the noble Lord referred. The Government are willing to consider it. I will, if I may, pursue that separately, because I am not familiar with how far we have got on that issue, and I will come back to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as a precursor to that, asked about consultation before publication of the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, this is implementing the five-year strategy on asylum and immigration and those points that require legislation. In the normal course of policy-making, the Government always seek to have those conversations with our customers and our stakeholders, and this strategy reflects that dialogue. I am sure that there will be organisations that do not agree with what is in the strategy, and some may not feel that they were consulted as much as they might have been. Again, my door is open to those who wish to come and talk about the legislation, but it is part of our work to have that ongoing dialogue. As I have already indicated, it is part of our manifesto commitment, and I am sure that all noble Lords present here and many organisations will be deeply familiar with what was in the manifesto.
	I am going to deal with this in three big chunks. I will start with appeals. The right of appellants will be protected by providing an in-country right of appeal, as I have stated, where a removal decision has raised human rights or asylum issues. I have listened to the arguments about the need to broaden and think further about the range of cases. I say straight away that in Committee I will look carefully at the proposals that might come forward. I am particularly inviting suggestions from your Lordships that might identify an alternative approach that creates what is central to this part of the Bill—an effective, one-stop appeals process but one that might confer in-country appeal rights on a wider range of cases. I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said about flexibility on students. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made the same point, as did other noble Lords. I am willing to look at that. The objective is to create a one-stop appeals system. We are open—I am anyway—to looking more fully at what else we might do. I hope that noble Lords will approach the Committee in that spirit. I value very much contributions and discussions outside of the formal processes, and I am very keen to hear from noble Lords about that. It is within the principle of getting a one-stop appeals system in the best possible way. I hope that that covers some of the points which my noble friend Lady Warwick was concerned about. She was particularly concerned about students accidentally doing something illegal.
	Part of the rationale behind the provisions is to allow the refusal and curtailment decisions to be made simultaneously. Under Clause 13, someone who has been the subject of a removal decision will not be committing an offence during any time when an appeal against removal from inside the UK could be brought or is pending and will not be liable to have their passport endorsed on embarkation if they have complied with the terms of their leave. Anyone who has had leave refused or curtailed and embarks within any time that an appeal in-country could be brought, which is within 10 working days, would not be committing an offence. However, I shall look very carefully when we are in Committee to make sure that we have covered this point. It is not the purpose of the Bill to make people do something illegal accidentally. Its purpose is to deal properly with issues of immigration, asylum and nationality. We believe we have captured that properly but I am very comfortable about making a commitment to make sure that we are clear about it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was keen to make sure that we look at the points system in the context of the appeals system. We want to ensure that this works properly, so we are looking to phase in and phase out in some logical, coherent and consistent way. I hope that in Committee I can give noble Lords more information about how that will work and that that will allay some concerns. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, will be interested in that point.
	Noble Lords have placed great emphasis on the quality of the initial decision-making, and gave lots of statistics and anecdotes. I will not even attempt to say which statistics are right or wrong, but in Committee I will give noble Lords what we believe to be the latest and most accurate statistics. That would be helpful; it may do nothing for the case to be made but at least we will be operating on the basis of the same set of statistics.
	A great deal of work has gone into making the process as good as it can be. The plan is to make the independent monitor a full-time position. We have regional operation managers operating overseas; we are making sure that there is managerial oversight and good quality control and, as far as possible, that decisions are taken properly. I will say more about students when I discuss that subject. I will be happy to talk in detail about the processes; the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was keen that we deal with that properly.
	I recognise the issues about temporary staff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned. Of course we will make sure that all the entry clearance officers, whether temporary or permanent, attend training courses in the UK prior to taking up their assignments overseas. They are recruited from the Immigration Service and those with no previous experience of entry clearance will attend a three-week training course. Quite a lot of work is done to ensure that the decisions are all that they can be. However, we recognise that we have to do more, as the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Hylton, pointed out. We must make sure that we demonstrate not only how good the work is already but how much better it can be.
	We are looking carefully at the way in which the processes will be introduced at the same time as developing the system. Therefore, we hope to deal with some of the issues that underlie noble Lords' concerns.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford asked about unaccompanied minors and whether I would reiterate what my honourable friend said in another place. Tony McNulty said that former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will have a separate right of appeal against refusal or curtailment of leave. I am happy to discuss that further with the right reverend Prelate, and we will raise it in Committee.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about the role of safeguarding boards, and some noble Lords raised the issue of children more generally. I take a great interest in our children's policy and I need to discuss children's safeguarding boards with Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills to see whether that is appropriate. I am also delighted that the Constitution Committee is looking at appeals; it did me great service during the passage of the Higher Education Bill in helping me work out a number of different ways in which we might deal with appeals. I look forward to its contribution.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we are making sure that people who appeal against removal on the grounds that it would breach their human rights can do this in the UK. That includes some of the categories that the noble Lord was concerned about, such as people connected with families, covered by Article 8 on the right to family life.
	Student workers and ministers of religion will continue to be able to appeal on the grounds that a decision breached their human rights or was racially discriminatory. I have already indicated the importance of the role of the independent monitor. That will be particularly important, given the point made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia: if you know that your decision will be reviewed, you make a better decision. The independent monitor will be there much more quickly than a review would be and will give rapid feedback on entry clearance. We hope that that will be an important part of the process.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what we were doing about the need for an independent source of country-by-country assessment. His concern was highlighted in the court judgment about people returning to Zimbabwe. The recent decisions did not criticise the Home Office's country of origin information on the general human rights questions in that country. The view was expressed that we should take a more active role in monitoring the treatment of failed asylum seekers once returned. The Home Office is considering whether there is anything that might usefully be done. But we return people only when they are considered not to be at risk and, as I am sure the noble Lord recognises, there are limits to what one can do in monitoring non-British citizens in overseas countries. More generally, the country of origin information provided by the Home Office is subject to the independent Advisory Panel on Country Information, which has made a lot of constructive comments over the past two years. It draws on reports by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, NGOs, the US State Department, the Foreign Office and the media. It is an important part of the process.
	In concluding this part of my reply, I shall be looking at in-country appeals within the single appeal process and am willing to comment further on the phasing in and phasing out elements.
	On education, I disagree with my noble friend Lady Warwick in one sense. The debate implied that the appeals process was a real factor in the decision that people take in coming to this country. I do not quite accept that. I take the point that you cannot look at what other countries do and say that because they do it, it is right. Of course, countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not have an appeals process. I agree wholeheartedly with everybody who says we want to be the best in the world and to attract as many students as possible. That is great for our economy, for our institutions, and for exporting a bit of Britain. It is also very important for globalisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, it goes wider than universities. We do not disagree on the principle, but I am not sure that I accept that the appeals process is a factor, or much of a factor, in what people do. However, I accept that if we are to sell to overseas students, we need the best system possible.
	The number of applications for entry clearance to study has risen dramatically, from 99,540 in 2000 to 254,000 in 2004, excluding student nurses. Data from 2003, which includes student nurses, shows that the majority of applications were granted—an appeal-allowed rate of 28 per cent. That means that 1 per cent of students gained entry to the UK as a result of an allowed appeal.
	I was glad that the Chancellor announced a package to help the higher education sector benefit from the opportunities of globalisation. That was welcomed by Universities UK. I wanted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that a new UK-China university partnership scheme has been announced to support scholarships and to encourage academic exchanges and collaboration between centres of excellence in science and technology. I shall happily obtain more details for the noble Lord, but I wanted to make sure he was aware of that.
	I agree that we need to do more and everything we can to attract international students. It is important that we make sure we are the best. We think that the new objective tests will be better placed. I accept all the comments and anecdotes that noble Lords have raised—and I have heard many more—about what can go wrong. But we also hope that the relationship that we will develop between the institution and the student, and the sponsorship role, will enable many of those issues to be dealt with. The ambition is to ensure that we focus our resources better, and make sure that as many students come here, but we also want to ensure that students are genuinely coming to study. So the relationship between the institution and the student is critical, for all sorts of good reasons, not least the support that they can give the student.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she accept that top quality universities in this country have a lengthy application process; they check qualifications and often have staff in the countries from which the students are drawn. My own institution has a full-time permanent representative in Beijing, for example—thus there is a careful process before an application is made. So there is room for a degree of closer co-operation between universities application offices and the application process for visas. I hope that we may explore that further.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would be delighted to explore that further. The noble Lord is absolutely right. When we get the institutions and the students collaborating more we will get better results in all sorts of ways. That is important. Students can reapply at the end of the process. It is not a case of, "That's it; they can never reapply"—they can. But we are also looking for an administrative review—although I am not sure what I should call that. Regarding the forceful points made by noble Lords about administrative errors, such as a university not existing or the wrong name being provided, something within that process will enable such cases to be reviewed quickly without the need for appeal. I hope that that will go some way towards dealing with much of the anecdotal evidence I have received. We want a combination of good decision-making, objective ways of approaching cases and stronger links with universities, students and other institutions, because noble Lords will accept that while this does not apply to universities as much, where good processes are already in place, we need to look more at the grey area of institutions where people apply for courses that we are not sure exist. But there is much that we can do for the students that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was concerned with. An administrative "review" combined with the fact that students can reapply will mean that we can get where we need to be without having to do everything that the noble Lord might think was necessary.
	We are repealing the previous legislation regarding illegal working because it was unwieldy and it did not provide us with flexibility. We are trying to ensure that for employers who genuinely do their best, but are not putting the right processes in place, we have a series of appropriate sanctions that we can bring to bear. So there will be a maximum fine of £2,000 per illegal worker. It may not be used in all cases. We may caution people if they collaborate and are co-operative, we might, for example, reduce that sum. However, it is fair to say to an employer, "When you employ someone, you have a responsibility to check". That means checking at the beginning and may mean checking again later. A code of practice is being issued to employers that will make the process as simple and as straightforward as possible—but the sanctions are realistic.
	For those who genuinely and knowingly employ illegal workers, there are further sanctions that include imprisonment. That is the reason for what we have done. This is a better, more appropriate, more flexible way. We do not want to put burdens on employers, but they must recognise that they have a responsibility to make sure that what they are doing is right. We are keen, as some noble Lords have said, to ensure that employers do not discriminate against workers, which would be utterly against the grain of what we want to achieve.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked how many enforcement officers there are—we have some 1,200 in the UK and we are seeking to increase the level of arrest-trained staff. That is important. We shall return to the question of employment in greater depth, but I hope that noble Lords will accept that as a brief description of what we are trying to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about my favourite subject, Europe. As the Minister responsible for European civil justice, having had a huge triumph last week, I could talk for a long time—but I will not. It is very important that we work closely with our colleagues in the European Union. The Home Secretary was impressive last week in obtaining agreements in Brussels on data retention. We went to the wire, but we got there. It was important for matters such as the European arrest warrant that we have that collaboration. Fingerprints of asylum seekers are already being shared with EU member states through the Eurodat database, which has been operation for about two years. The "Dublin regulation" has successfully enabled us to remove approximately 200 asylum applicants per month to the EU state responsible. I hope that that is useful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford asked whether we monitor people kept in detention. Yes, we keep quarterly statistics on how many people are detained and for how long, but do not include their ages.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, regarding detention, will the Minister consider a system whereby magistrates could visit detention centres, perhaps weekly, to see whether the original detention was justified, whether it should be continued and whether each person that might get bail can get it? That would comply with suggestions made by the UN High Commissioner. I should have mentioned that point before, but I hope that it can still be considered.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was going to reply to that anyway, because the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, sent me a note. It was to be my next point. I presume that what the noble Lord seeks is consideration of the lawfulness of immigration detention. Mechanisms already exist for those who wish to challenge that, either through traditional review or habeas corpus. We have no plans at this stage to alter the existing arrangements, but detainees must be advised of right to legal advice, and how they can obtain it, within 24 hours of their arrival at a removal centre. Every removal centre has an independent monitoring board for treatment of detainees. I will write more fully to the noble Lord on that, too, to make sure that I have covered his point. I was grateful for the welcome given by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for the inclusion of Clause 45 regarding the inspection of detention facilities.
	I conclude by dealing with the very important issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which we shall consider in much greater depth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, indicated,. I have had a chance to look at some of some of the issues that it raised. The noble Baroness asked how I could claim that the Bill was compatible with human rights. We believe that it is compatible, not least because there is no human right, as such, to citizenship, which the JCHR accepts. Full appeal against deportation can be made either to the asylum and immigration tribunal or to SIAC. Deportation cannot be carried out until the appeal is finally determined. We believe that the framing of the Bill is compatible with human rights. We also believe that Clause 7 is fully compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We anticipate this working alongside the memorandum of understanding that we have agreed with the governments of Jordan and Libya and are currently negotiating with the governments of Algeria and Lebanon. Those memoranda are for obtaining specific assurances on the individual treatment of a person who is to be returned. It is about ensuring that those who threaten our national security can be removed, but in full conformity with our international obligations. It is for the courts, not the Government, to decide in each case whether that assessment is correct—that is important.
	We do not accept that Clause 52 defines terrorism too widely. We believe that we have dealt effectively with compatibility with the refugee convention. In these clauses, we are seeking to make explicit what we believe Article 1(F)(c) implicitly requires us to do.
	Noble Lords asked what the current criteria are for deprivation of British nationality. As they will know, the two grounds are acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and nationality obtained by deception. That information may be implicit in Article 1(F)(c) of the convention but it is not stated explicitly. It refers only to acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, but, as noble Lords—in particular, those on the committee—will be aware, the resolution on the interpretation of that article states that,
	"knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts",
	as well as the commission of terrorist acts, constitute acts,
	"contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".
	We have looked at other resolutions, such as Resolution 1624, to try to put into the Bill as accurately and appropriately as we can our interpretation of Article 1(F)(c).
	The noble Baroness asked whether we are proposing to rely on the existing definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act. That is the current law. The review by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is very important, and while it is ongoing, we will use the current law. The noble Baroness rightly raised the whole question of unacceptable behaviours and asked whether the deprivation of British nationality and right of abode is correctly framed. She will know that on 24 August the Secretary of State issued a statement in which he went through a series of unacceptable behaviours. I shall not read them out to your Lordships now but I will make them available. We have included in our thinking conduct seriously prejudicial, war crimes, serious crimes, threat to public order and actions prejudicial to relations between the UK and another state. We do not believe that we should set out an exhaustive list—as noble Lords know, I do not like lists—because there might be circumstances in which a future Secretary of State could lawfully be satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the public good. That is why we are resisting the inclusion of a list in the Bill.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, between now and the later stages of the Bill, can the Minister tell us what, in reality, deprivation of citizenship means and what it includes? In relation to the right of abode, the noble Baroness mentioned that a person can be deported from this country, but where to? No other country would accept responsibility for a person who had a British passport which the British Government had taken away.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have made it clear that we would not make anyone stateless under our international obligations. Therefore, the provision would apply only to people with joint nationality—not, I hasten to add, to those who are entitled to joint nationality, such as Jewish people, who are automatically entitled to be members of the state of Israel but choose not to be. However, the noble Lord makes a good point and, if I may, I shall come back to it in Committee and discuss in greater depth the relations between individual nation states and how the measure would work. But we would not make people stateless—an important point raised by the committee.
	I recognise that the committee is clearly saying to us that the public good test is too vague. I look forward very much to discussing the whole issue with the noble Baroness and others. As always, I take very seriously what the committee is telling us.
	My final point relates to the gangmasters legislation—an issue raised by my noble friend and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We believe that the provisions in the Bill are complementary to those in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act, which provides a basis for better regulation of gangmasters. We hope that the provisions in this Bill will ensure that all employers are clear about their responsibility to check on the status of their employees.
	I will write to my noble friend Lord Lea about ID cards. As noble Lords know, I am not currently involved in that legislation and I would not wish to give noble Lords anything other than an accurate answer.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will my noble friend write to me on the issue of regularisation—a matter also raised by my noble friend Lord Lea—and also about not deporting women who have been trafficked for the sex industry?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. I was about to make the point about regularisation. As I indicated at the beginning, if I have missed any points raised by noble Lords, I shall ensure, as I always do, that I cover every point in correspondence.
	I am very grateful to noble Lords. This has been a fascinating and interesting debate. We are very clear on the areas that we need to debate in detail in Committee. I give noble Lords a commitment that we will do so properly and that we will make the Bill as good as it can be.
	On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Croatia: EU Accession

The Earl of Dundee: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the contribution which Croatia's accession to the European Union will make towards peace and stability in Europe.
	My Lords, in introducing the debate, I declare an interest as chairman of the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Group on Croatia.
	As your Lordships are aware, two months ago in October the European Union decided to open negotiations for full membership with Turkey and Croatia. The decision applying to it has been much welcomed in Croatia; and certainly that country stands to benefit a great deal from European Union accession and membership. Today, however, I will address the corollary to that: the contribution that Croatia's EU accession may be able to make towards peace and stability in Europe. In so doing, I shall connect together three themes: first, the need in south-eastern Europe for consolidated peace and stability; secondly, in the European Union's existing regions and communities the aim of enhancing well-being and opportunity; and, thirdly, between the European Union and its member states the aspiration of balance and subsidiarity.
	Over the past few years in south-eastern Europe, the prospect of joining the European Union has undoubtedly influenced a number of positive outcomes. They include much-needed reform in Bosnia and, in 2001, the aversion of civil war in Macedonia, where, instead, ethnic Albanians and Macedonians have worked together in government. The decision in favour of Croatia last October has further improved that direction. It was no coincidence that, only a week later, Serbia and Montenegro were able to begin preliminary talks with the EU. On 21 October, Bosnia was told that it could do so as well. Then, last month, the European Commission addressed Macedonia's application.
	In relation to the stabilisation and association agreement, Croatia's neighbours have already been encouraged by that country's success and preparedness in harmonising much legislation. That means that in starting negotiations, which it now does, Croatia's point of departure in terms of the acquis so far adopted will not be from zero but from a point more than halfway along to the conclusion. Of course, tough challenges remain. Such include the reform of the judiciary and improvement to the market economy. Yet, the Commission assesses that those and other challenges will have been sufficiently met in the medium term. It is just that kind of verdict, based on proper evidence, that strengthens further the resolve of Croatia's neighbours, who share similar problems that, daunting and intransigent though they may appear to be, are, within the process of EU accession, now demonstrated to be capable of solution.
	If, in promoting stability in south-eastern Europe, Croatia then continues to play a key role, it goes without saying that that endeavour should be fully supported by the European Union, and, as indicated, the EU has already acted wisely. Not least will its recent assurance to Serbia serve to cushion the blow if either Montenegro or Kosovo or both should vote for independence. Nevertheless, funding levels threaten to become ever-anomalous between the EU and Serbia. One estimate is that, between 2003 and 2009, while aid to Bulgaria as an official candidate will rise from €300 million in 2003 to €6 billion by 2009, that to Serbia, with a similar population but not an official candidate, will drop from €240 million to €117 million during the same period. Does the Minister agree that, consistent with its priority of advancing stability in south-eastern Europe, the European Union should therefore now address that funding anomaly and give more aid to Serbia?
	On international regional co-operation and within developed structures, Croatia already works to good effect with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. Elsewhere, it has also adopted a pragmatic approach. While carrying out reforms, it has evaluated the experience of countries recently joining the EU. In that way and on the whole, it has managed to avoid mistakes and adopt best practice.
	The UK remains the greatest partner of the Croatian Ministry of European Integration in providing technical assistance, particularly regarding education and public service. For a number of years, the UK and Croatia have also worked together and achieved some convincing results in combating crime. During the next stage of Croatia's European Union journey, clearly the partnership between it and the UK will further strengthen and diversify. Yet one inconsistency obtains: the UK is the only European state that still maintains a visa regime with Croatia. For a long period, the Government have claimed that that imposed restriction is nevertheless constantly under review. Does the Minister agree that, for obvious reasons, the time is now right to end it?
	Bilateralism connects to the second theme, which focuses on enhanced well-being and opportunity in the European Union's regions and communities. The task of achieving such a purpose is normally attributed to national governments or local governments within nation states, although to some extent also through EU-assisted programmes and disbursements. Yet, in spite of that logical approach to delivery, a similar pattern emerges all over Europe: instability. That pattern occurs even though increasing resources may well be delivered through the usual channels. To that extent, therefore, the usual channels are found wanting. No doubt that is why there are now so many joint initiatives and partnerships. These are formed between private and public bodies in a variety of combinations at local and national level. They try to compensate for the deficiency in delivery by the usual channels. Yet they do not set themselves up as rivals. Instead, through the accumulation of evidence and in other ways, they aim to evolve much better practice for adoption and to reduce instability in regions and communities.
	The manifestation of such instability is frequently perceived to be youth unemployment and disorientation, leading to youth crime and disruption. Increasing examples are of joint initiatives embarked on between different EU regions, or where partners to the same initiative are from different regions. Since informal, by definition, those efforts have the advantage of independence from national government or EU restrictions. In that context, I should say that, to my knowledge, there are already some small but extremely useful joint initiatives between operators in Croatia and Scotland.
	Independent bilateral endeavour to assist better practice is also closely related to the third theme: the aspiration of balance and subsidiarity between the European Union and its members. One important aspect of that is a proper role in the EU for national parliaments in general, not least their function of scrutiny over draft EU legislation. I pay tribute to the achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in that regard and for his work as chairman of COSAC during the current British EU presidency. I know that the Minister also takes a keen interest in the role of EU parliaments. Does he agree that regional contacts to evolve best practice, as indicated, represent another powerful force of balance and subsidiarity in Europe? Can he say what support and funding may be in place in the EU and the Council of Europe to advance both those forms of subsidiarity?
	Whether in south-eastern Europe or elsewhere in the Union, Croatia can now make a significant contribution to peace and stability. We should rejoice in what is now the reality of a wider Union and in its triumph for peace, history and humanity.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on raising the issue of Croatia and its relations with Europe. I agree with him that Croatia is a European country by most definitions, culturally and geographically. It has made substantial strides towards incorporating the acquis. No doubt, as the process moves along, further such progress will be made.
	It is therefore important, as the noble Earl stressed, to see Croatia as a stabilising factor in part of the near-abroad of the European Union. He was also right to see the process of the accession of Croatia as part of the enlargement process as a whole. Although there may be hesitation about the European credentials, size and cultural credentials of certain other countries, there can be no such hesitation in respect of Croatia.
	Croatians do not see themselves as a Balkan country, because of the pejorative connotation of "Balkan". They no doubt feel upset when they think of Metternich's suggestion that the Balkans begin at the Landstrasse from Vienna. They view themselves as central European. Having spent one afternoon in the cathedral in Zagreb, looking at the way that the different phases of architecture exactly paralleled those in western Europe, I can well see the reasons for that pride in being part of central Europe. One should therefore, perhaps, not talk so much of the enlargement of the European Union, more of a process of reunification.
	After Slovenia, in terms of its prosperity and culture, Croatia is next in line. If there are some who see, somewhere in the Balkans, the collision of the tectonic plates of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, and if there is to be a divide there, Croatia is very firmly on the western, Christian, Catholic side. Hence the strong commitment of Austria to Croatia, not only in the early 1990s—some say with a somewhat negative effect—during the period of Alois Mock, but now with Wolfgang Schüssel, with the rather murky events at the beginning of October.
	We must recognise, however, that, for that reason, Austria has been consistent. There have been suggestions that the decision to compensate and restitute German expellees from Croatia, which coincided almost exactly with the change in October, was part of a pay-off. My Austrian friends deny that, however, and say that the agreement was the end part of a long period of negotiation. It will be interesting to see how Her Majesty's Government construe it.
	The proper self-image of the Croatians is wholly European. There was a delay compared to other countries, similar to that in Slovakia under Meciar, because, under the Tudjman regime from 1992 to 1999, Croatia remained a poor Balkan country. During the last 18 months, however, there has, in my judgment, been a profound transformation, and under the same party as Tudjman, the HDZ. Prime Minister Sanader deserves considerable credit for that. There has been a real effort at internal reconciliation in Krajina and external co-operation with other countries in the region. There has also been recognition of the responsibility for war crimes in the 1990s and even with regard to the crimes against the Jewish population in the Second World War.
	I mentioned the volte-face of the ICTY in respect of Mr Gotovina. It happened, according to some commentators, between 1 and 4 October. It was a Damascene conversion in that context. However, others allege that our press has misconstrued what happened over that time and that the conversion was neither miraculous nor suspicious. I am not aware of any objective evidence of a major change in respect of Gotovina, and it may well be that Carla del Ponte did her office no good and may have created further difficulties for the War Crimes Tribunal in respect of Serbia. But what is done is done, and we have much that is positive to say about Croatia.
	The economy is in good shape. It had substantial growth last year, and tourist receipts are buoyant. However, it needs to move from an opaque to a more open and mature government structure and to open up its banking sector, particularly the financial services sector. The World Bank report in May this year concluded that the overall fiduciary risk was "significant", resulting from deficiencies in public financial management. Therefore, much needs to be done in the interim period. British American Tobacco recently threatened to withdraw because of the effect on investors there. The World Bank and the IFC survey ranked Croatia behind 134 other countries in the protection of investments.
	In terms of the simultaneous move towards NATO, Croatia is a member of the membership action plan, but there needs to be a substantial transformation of its armed forces to make it NATO-compatible. The last figure that I saw showed that three-quarters of its defence expenditure was spent on personnel and only 8 per cent on new investment. The personnel of its armed forces are extremely old.
	What can we in the United Kingdom do to bring Croatia closer to the European Union? What progress has been made? Some examples were given by the noble Earl. What is the current target date for accession? Clearly, the Croatian target date of 2007–08 is unrealistic, but in our contribution, we should look at the well tried instruments of twinning with local authorities, of more parliamentary exchanges, and of placements in the public service of particular help to the police and the army in exorcising the ghosts of the communists and the period of Tudjman. There are particular problems in justice and home affairs, the functioning of the courts and the quality of the judiciary. I know that Austria has been particularly active here.
	What efforts have been made to promote regional co-operation using the committed neighbours—Austria, Hungary and Slovenia—as mentors? Important, too, are regional infrastructure projects promoting regional agreements such as the agreement reached in November on the south-east Europe energy convention. What pressure will there be on Croatia to accelerate the integration of Serbs in the Krajina and also in the regranting of citizenship to Serb former citizens? Obviously, there should be help, too, to eliminate the non-tariff barriers in that region because it is important that the countries of the region work together closely.
	What are the benefits to the European Union of the welcome accession of Croatia? Negatively, it will help to reduce the dangers of Croatia and the region being used as a transit route to the European Union for drugs, people and arms smuggling by organised gangs. There is a long history along the Dalmatian coast, but Montenegro and Albania are probably worse offenders, certainly in terms of corruption. Positively, it is an opportunity to show to the region that, if a country does things that are right, it will be rewarded. I hope that Serbia and Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia will be able to co-operate with Croatia and in time follow Croatia along that route. Certainly Croatia's geo-strategic position and its increasing respect for minorities will help to stabilise a key and potentially vulnerable region for the European Union. The progress made thus far should be recognised with approval, and we should encourage Croatia to continue further along that route.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, two months ago, the negotiations for Croatia's accession to the European Union were begun, so the noble Earl's Question comes at an opportune moment to take stock of that important event and to look ahead.
	The process that led up to the opening of negotiations was far from straightforward or trouble-free. In normal circumstances, negotiations would have been opened some months earlier, but they were delayed in the light of the view expressed by the chief prosecutor of the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia—to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred—that Croatia was not co-operating fully with the task of bringing before the court one of its nationals who had been indicted for war crimes. That delay was much criticised in Croatia. It was even suggested that it could cause many Croatians to have second thoughts about the desirability of joining the European Union. I think that the EU was entirely justified in the position it took and in refusing to move ahead until the prosecutor was satisfied that she was getting full co-operation. I hope that the corollary to that position—namely, that should the prosecutor again find that she is not getting full co-operation, the negotiations will have to be suspended—is also true. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, will confirm that is the case, as was indicated at the time of the Government's Statement to this House on the opening of negotiations. I say that out of no prejudice against the Government of Croatia or of any desire to see negotiations retarded or suspended. Quite the contrary: I am convinced that if the EU is clear and forthright on this point, the matter will never be put to the test.
	The significance of Croatia's co-operation with the international tribunal is a reminder—as is the wording of the noble Earl's Question, which speaks of peace and stability—of the need to look at Croatia's accession in a much wider context than just that of one country's application for membership. A mere 10 years ago, the guns had only just fallen silent on one of Europe's most sanguinary civil wars, because although the wars in the former Yugoslavia had some of the characteristics of wars between states, they also had many of the characteristics of wars within states—that modern paradigm which the international community is still having a good deal of difficulty in grasping and even more in handling.
	Europe's track record of that time was less than glorious, as was Croatia's. The Bosnian conflict had subjected both to enormous strains and many mistakes both of omission and commission were made. But my purpose in mentioning this is not to rake over the ashes of old conflicts but rather to register what a remarkable turnaround occurred soon after the low point of Srebrenica. In the next few years, not only did Croatia put behind it the temptations of interference in its Bosnian neighbour's affairs, but the European Union moved gradually but effectively into a central role in keeping the peace and securing a stable future for the Balkans. No European policy has contributed more to this increased influence and effectiveness than the conditional opening of the door to eventual accession by all the countries of the region. In that context, I would welcome an indication from the Minister on whether the EU is now working to ensure the return of the Serb residents of the Krajina who were forcibly expelled in 1995.
	It is odd how long it took to be fully understood what a powerful transformational instrument the prospect and, eventually, the actuality of EU accession can be. After all, it worked well in Greece, then it worked well in Spain and Portugal, and then it worked well with former communist countries of central and eastern Europe. Now it is beginning to work in the western Balkans. It has become one of the most significant demonstrations of what is often called "soft power". It is the glue that holds together the other instruments the EU possesses and deploys: peacekeeping troops, civilian police training and economic aid. It is what has enabled the European Union to play an ever growing role in securing peace and stability in its own backyard. Of course, it works only if the conditionality implied in the Copenhagen criteria for membership is rigorously applied and implemented. That will, no doubt, lead to some difficult moments, not just for Croatia, but for every candidate for accession from now onwards. It is in the interests of neither the European Union nor the citizens of the candidates for membership that those criteria should be fudged or applied in a haphazard fashion.
	When, following the rejection of the European constitutional treaty in the French and Dutch referendums, a dark shadow fell over the prospects for further enlargement, most people were thinking about the implications for Turkey when they should have been thinking just as much about the implications for the west Balkans. That was what made the decisions taken on 3 October to open negotiations with Turkey and Croatia so very important and why it is only fair to give real credit to Britain's EU presidency for standing firm and thus, for the time being at least, dissipating that dark shadow. No doubt further enlargement will remain a fraught subject in the European Union, never again likely to be as comfortably uncontentious as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. So we will need not for a moment to forget how much is riding on it and how damaging the consequences are likely to be if we turn away from it.
	Coming back from these wider perspectives to the candidacy of Croatia itself, it will be important to move these negotiations ahead purposefully and with determination on both sides. The European Union will need to avoid being distracted by its other preoccupations; Croatia will need to find the political will to overcome the problems that inevitably arise in such complex negotiations. I hope that this House and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Enlargement, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be able to assist in a modest way on both sides of that equation. It would be surprising indeed if Croatia was not to become the 28th member of the Union, and I, for one, fully expect it to do so.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, let me also thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for initiating this debate on a topic so important to the future of the European Union and to the wider future of Europe itself. I start by congratulating Croatia and the Croatians because a couple of days ago Croatia won the Davis Cup. It was a remarkable achievement because there are only 4.5 million people in Croatia compared with the 60 million people in the UK and I believe we have not even got near to the final in the post-war period. The losing country in the final was Slovakia, which is also a new European state.
	About three weeks ago, I was in Santa Barbara, California, an idyllic little spot. I have to admit to the Minister, who is busy with his papers, that I gave up one of my roster nights in order to do so. Fortunately, he is no longer my Whip—at least, I believe that he is no longer my Whip. In Santa Barbara, California, there are some lovely second-hand bookstores. In one of them, I bought a book for a dollar, the equivalent of about 60p these days. It was called Inside Europe and was written by John Gunther. It was published in 1961. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, knows about John Gunther. He wrote a range of books over a fairly lengthy period. It was an extraordinary experience to read that book sitting on the beach in Santa Barbara. It brought home to me the enormity of the changes that have happened in Europe over some four decades. At the time that the book was written, in 1961, Europe was still divided. The author speaks of Germany as the fiery heart of Europe. At that time, the Berlin Wall had not been built. People were still commuting, mostly from the east to the west, but some from the west to the east. It was the time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned, there were dictatorships in three core European countries: Portugal, Spain and Greece. Some of the major European states were still colonial countries at that time. One of the interesting things about the book was that there was a mention of what was to become the European Economic Community, but it warranted only five pages in a book of some 500 pages.
	What advance has been made since then? Of course, one cannot say that the European Union is responsible for all the changes that have happened, but it is responsible for a fairly substantial number of them. I would like to echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about the significance of enlargement. Enlargement is the single most important foreign policy tool of the European Union. It has created not only a zone of peace in Europe, but a zone of hope for societies that are outside the membership of the European Union. Compare that with the zone around the United States. If one looks at Central or Latin America, states in those areas have suffered from American intervention in previous periods, leading to civil wars and so forth, and many people have been killed—for example, in Guatemala—but the United States does not offer a model. It does not offer the same kind of possibilities for the future that the European Union does. My view is that, in spite of the problems that the European Union has suffered recently, enlargement should and must continue. It is crucial to the future of Europe and the future of the European Union.
	We tend to think of the Balkans as exceptional—I accept that Croatia might not regard itself as part of the Balkans—and we tend to think of it as historically a conflict-ridden area where a world war was initiated and where there is, apparently, a famous clash of civilisations, as Samuel Huntingdon so famously described it. But that view is wrong. I do not think that the Balkans are significantly more unstable than the rest of Europe used to be. The Balkans are a hangover from European history, rather than being an exception to it, because European history is the history of tribalism, division, ethnic conflicts and violence. One of the most interesting works on this issue is Mark Mazower's book Dark Continent in which he shows that the progress of Europe has not been an untrammelled, easy process of movement towards democracy. It has been a highly turbulent history, including its recent history and its very recent history, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We have to see the Balkans more as an extension of what European history used to be, rather than as an area specifically different from the rest of Europe.
	That is why it is so important to speak of the accession negotiations that have begun with Croatia. Of course, the opening of negotiations with Croatia was overshadowed, especially in the media, by the opening of negotiations with Turkey. I speak as a strong supporter of Turkey's potential accession to the European Union. I was a member of the so-called independent group on Turkey, which was headed by the ex-President of Finland, Mr Ahtisaari. We were all independent experts, although I was less of an expert on Turkey than on more general issues, but we came down firmly behind Turkey's accession to Europe.
	Croatia is a small country, as I said, but its potential accession is perhaps just as important as that of Turkey for the future of Europe and the future of the wider region. In a speech in Zagreb on 10 July 2003, Romano Prodi, who was then the head of the European Commission, said that by submitting its application, Croatia,
	"has declared that the long and trying period of war, division and nationalism is well and truly over".
	He reaffirmed the European Union's firm commitment to the integration of the Balkans as a whole into the Union. In that process, Croatia must be a vanguard country. It must show to the rest of the area that it is possible to have a country that was war-torn and caught up in the horrific conflicts, about which we know so well, that can make the transition to peace and economic development and be part of an effective European Union.
	As my noble friend Lord Anderson mentioned, some of the signs are good. I had a good look at the economic statistics for Croatia and they show that Croatia is already deeply integrated into the wider economy of the European Union—far more than any other state in that area, with the exception of Slovenia. That process is facilitated by the recovery of tourism in the country. On the other hand, we should not be complacent about that and nor should the Croatian Government—I believe that they are not. There are still strong currents of nationalism around. I hope that winning the Davis Cup will be a positive version of nationalism, not a negative one. There are still major divisions in the country. Support for the European Union has been waning recently, rather than rising. General Gotovina is still at large, although the Croatians have now promised full co-operation with the ICTY.
	In conclusion, like other noble Lords, I think that we must welcome that as a major advance in Europe. I should like to ask the Minister something different—more about the European Union itself, rather than just Croatia. Following the referenda and the stalling of some aspects of European progress, we must no longer simply ask, "What can the EU demand of the accession countries?"; we must also ask, "What can the potential accession countries ask of the EU?". We need reform in the EU and to push ahead with the European project. I have heard many members of the Government say that Europe should not be just a marketplace, but I should like to hear the Minister say in what respect it should not. I believe that Europe must be a political project. If it is to be a political project, there must be governance reforms in the European Union. I cannot see how those reforms can be not a bit like those proposed in the constitution. Potential accession countries will be watching to see how far the European Union can set itself on the right course. If there is to be a political Europe, what are some of the main contours that it should assume?

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I join those who congratulated my noble friend Lord Dundee on choosing this topic, which is clearly of high public interest. Although this place is not exactly standing room only, none the less it is being debated here, which is rather more than is happening in the House of Commons. Above all, I should like to dwell on the point repeated by every speaker so far in the debate: the accession of Croatia beckons the wider association, within some form of co-operation, of the other Balkan countries.
	I accept at once the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that Croatia does not regard itself so much as Balkan as part of the Austrian heritage. In religious terms, that is perfectly true. None the less, everyone who has taken part in this debate understands that we are now thinking in terms of Serbia, with or without Montenegro operating separately, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia and, inevitably, even of Albania, as having some kind of future in a wider organisation. The very fact that the European Commission has been negotiating or having discussions with some of those countries is a pointer for future developments.
	Given that, it requires the European Union to have a looser view of relationships. The philosophy hammered out at Messina and, subsequently, in the Rome treaty or contained in the phraseology of "ever closer union" could not be applicable to those countries, given their history and the objectives that we have for them. As much as anything, those objectives are an absence of war. The Balkans have been a cockpit of the most terrifying disputes. The shadow of Princip is over this debate—however dramatic that language might be. It is true because the prize that we seek in that part of the Balkans is peaceful coexistence, which has hitherto eluded the peoples occupying it. I wish every success to the initiative now being undertaken by the Croatians. I very much agree with my noble friend that our visa arrangements with Croatia should be a sign of an early welcome on the part of the British Government.
	From now onwards, we should not be too dramatic in our expectations about the relationships that we seek to evolve in the Balkans. Whatever economic arrangements are made should have very long periods of transition, because the gap between the economic performance of the Balkans and that of the original Europe and, indeed, Europe as expanded by the recent new 10 members, is so substantial that such a long period will be required. On the other hand, the political objective should be made much clearer, more explicit and much quicker. In that context, perhaps I could say just one word about General Gotovina. We now understand that the authorities are convinced that the Croatian Government are doing their utmost to see that General Gotovina is brought to justice, if justice there be. I wish them every success, but I suspect that it is an immensely difficult task.
	However, to what extent at some stage will we seek an amnesty of some kind for all the disputes that have raged across the Balkans if that is to be part of the wider political settlement? We have to ask ourselves how much the present pursuit of war crimes is leading to conciliation in those parts of the world. Of course, there is a deal to be struck. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, takes a very different view from me but, in the long run, one has to accept that there will have to be an amnesty to help facilitate some kind of reconciliation covering the Balkans.
	The Croatians are receiving considerable and well justified praise for the speed with which they seek to adjust to the acquis. But the nature of the Croatian Government's extent of governance puts them in a very different category from other Balkan states. At some point, it would do the European Union no harm to revisit the acquis from the beginning as it applies to existing and potential memberships to see whether it is overambitious in what it requires and whether we can seek a partnership based on far less formal centralised regulation. Those two points are subsidiary to the main point: the challenge contained within the expansion of an association to cover the Balkans.
	We spend our time reflecting on the dangers and the difficulties. I would like to add the problem of Islamic fundamentalism and terror. An article by Nicholas Wood on 28 November in the International Herald Tribune, with the date line "Sarajevo", says:
	"A police raid last month on an apartment near this city's airport uncovered evidence of an imminent suicide bombing, intensifying the fears of Western security services that Bosnia is becoming a haven for Islamic radicals".
	I declare an interest: the author is my stepson, a journalist with the New York Times, who was a man of great political judgment in his day. A few years ago, after an election, he told me that he had voted for Labour. I inquired further and he explained that his Conservative candidate was the then Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. I judged that he was demonstrating against the institution rather than an individual. Anyway, it was by that sceptic way that I comforted myself, given that rather shattering news.
	That is just one example of how we must tread with great care and perspicuity as we enter into a part of Europe whose history is full of pitfalls and traps, but that is no reason why we should not tentatively have a policy there and not be inspired by the possibility of Croatian membership of the European Union. I, again, thank my noble friend and I hope for an encouraging answer from the Minister.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the opportunity to address issues affecting Croatia. I also enjoyed the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and the detailed analyses provided by the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Biffen. When I added my name to this debate a number of my colleagues asked me when I developed my interest in Croatia. I looked back and I said that my association started when the Hansard Society placed a Croatian student in my office for work experience. Much of our talk was taken up with the might of English football against Croatia, and tennis—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, mentioned that—and before she could have one up on me, yesterday I sent her an e-mail congratulating Croatia's team on winning the Davis Cup: Croatia has one or two things to teach us.
	One knows the sad history of the bitter war as the former Yugoslavia broke up. We simply have to look back at the changes that have taken place since 1999. Before that, the country was in turmoil; civil rights and political rights suffered and, more importantly, the governing party was corrupt and the economy was in great difficulties. But let us look at the changes that have taken place in Croatia since then. Presidential and parliamentary elections have demonstrated a very new beginning. The country is now working towards being a part of the European mainstream by starting accession negotiations for membership of the EU in October of this year following a positive assessment by the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Mrs Carla del Ponte, on Croatia's full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a point well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Croatia has been a candidate country since June 2004, after the European Commission concluded that she was a functioning democracy with a stable economy and a developed civil society.
	Croatia's progress towards EU membership was temporarily halted by the unresolved issue of the fugitive General Ante Gotovina. General Gotovina has been at large for four years following his indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for war crimes committed during and after Operation Storm, when Croatian forces retook Serb-occupied areas of the country in August 1995. In all other areas of co-operation with the ICTY, Croatia has an exemplary record. She has complied fully with all the requirements made by the tribunal, including the transfer of all other indictees to The Hague and making available all witnesses, suspects and documents requested by the tribunal from the government.
	The case of General Gotovina was proving to be an obstacle and the chief prosecutor was of the opinion that the Croatian Government were not doing everything in their power to locate the fugitive and transfer him to The Hague. In order to solve the problem the government, assisted by the EU, have devised an action plan which lists point by point measures that they would take in order to dismantle the network that was assisting General Gotovina, and ultimately thus locate him. The ICTY has requested full co-operation from the Croatian Government. In turn, the government have been working towards that aim, but the outcome is still awaited. However, full co-operation has meant doing everything possible and exploring every avenue.
	At the European Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 3 October last, Mrs del Ponte finally reported full co-operation by the Croatians and the EU/Croatia accession talks were opened with a formal ceremony. The process of screening is well under way, and the government expect the negotiations on the first chapter to begin later in December, with other negotiations following soon after.
	Relations between Croatia and the UK have been constantly developing, and the removal of the visa regime, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords, will additionally strengthen this link by adding to it many more dimensions. It will make much easier cultural, educational and business exchanges that are often hampered by the issue of visa requirements for Croatian citizens, not least because of the high cost. The visa regime has now become a counter-productive element in the relationship between the two countries.
	The fact that Croatia has opened accession talks with the EU has resulted in positive reactions in the rest of the region in south-east Europe. All the neighbouring governments have expressed their full support for Croatia's success in starting accession negotiations. This support has been steadfast from neighbouring countries ever since the normalisation of relations in the region. For the countries of south-east Europe, Croatia is seen as an example of what can be achieved if the criteria set by the EU institutions are met. The assessment of Brussels is that Croatia can lead and conclude the negotiations efficiently and relatively quickly. That in turn will send a positive signal to other countries in the region which at this moment are at various stages of the EU integration process.
	Similarly, it is in Croatia's interest to see her neighbours progress towards EU membership as soon as possible. What Croatia can offer to those countries is a transfer of knowledge on building democratic institutions. We should certainly welcome that. To that end, Croatia also remains committed to sharing with her neighbours the experience of these negotiations because she values highly the assistance she has received from the new member states which joined the EU in May 2004. By developing her economy and economic relations with neighbouring countries, Croatia can additionally strengthen them, both socially and economically. For every country in south-east Europe, each new step in the process of EU integration is an investment in peace and the stability of a region whose peoples have suffered so much over the past decade. They deserve to be part of the European family of nations.
	In the words of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw,
	"the beginning of accession negotiations is a historical moment and the beginning of a new era on Croatia's road towards the EU".
	This political reality is accompanied by a British initiative to establish a partnership between the UK and Croatia. The main aim of the partnership is to help Croatia become an EU member, and the focus of that assistance lies in the areas of justice and home affairs, along with the reform of public administration. The last is important because public administration carries through the whole process of the negotiations.
	Croatia is exceptionally well placed politically, linguistically and historically to play the role of agent, with the assistance of the UK, in the process of the development of democratic institutions in other countries in the region, especially in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo. The UK has a particular interest in seeing an end to the problems that emanate from the region—such as arms and people-trafficking—because they often end up in the United Kingdom.
	So what are my concerns? First, Her Majesty's Government decided to suspend a visa-free regime for Croatian citizens in 1999 following a wave of asylum seekers from Croatia—more specifically from the region of eastern Slavonia—all of them Croatian citizens of Serb nationality. Organised in groups, they claimed asylum in Scandinavian countries as well as in the United Kingdom. At its height, it was estimated in 1999 that the number of asylum seekers from Croatia to the United Kingdom was in the region of 1,200.
	The parliamentary elections in 2000, which brought about a landslide victory for democratic forces, marked a fundamental political change in Croatia. They also put an end to the reasons for which the Serb minority claimed political asylum in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Soon after, the Scandinavian countries, which have a joint visa regime, abolished the visa requirement for Croatian citizens. There has not been another wave of Croatian asylum seekers in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries since then. There must be a message for us in that development.
	Croatia has made enormous progress in implementing internal reforms in line with European standards, including respect for minority rights and the return of refugees and their property. The Serbian minority representatives today are coalition partners in the Right-of-centre government of Prime Minister Ivo Sanader.
	Croatia is not among the countries considered to be a source of immigration. The United Kingdom is the only member of the European Union—and indeed the only European country—which maintains a visa regime with Croatia. This visa regime has been maintained for some considerable time, but whenever questions have been put in the past the Government have said that the visa regime with Croatia is "constantly under review". The time has come to ask the Government: what is the conclusion of this review and when do Her Majesty's Government plan to publish the results? As the United Kingdom remains the only country with visa requirements for Croatian citizens, and as there has not been a single case of a Croatian asylum seeker in the United Kingdom, or any other country for that matter, for years, surely the time has come to suspend the suspension and thus give further impetus and encouragement to Croatia in its efforts to join the European Union before the end of the decade.
	It would be so nice, both for Croatia and those who value its democracy, if the Government were to relax their visa regime so that students, cultural groups and others can enjoy our democratic values.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dundee on securing the debate today. It has been most interesting, with important and knowledgeable contributions from all sides of the House.
	Slovenia's acceptance into the European Union last year and the start of membership talks with Croatia this October are, I am sure the Minister will agree, clear incentives for other states in the Balkans to undertake reforms and to apply for EU membership. If the negotiations with Croatia are successful, this will demonstrate to other governments in the region that a country deeply involved in the wars of the 1990s can, 10 years later, democratise and restore friendly relations with previous enemies, something which we on these Benches, and indeed your Lordships' House as a whole, fully support and encourage.
	Indeed, with Romania and Bulgaria's accession due in 2008, the remaining Balkan countries will be encircled by the EU and, unless they have a genuine prospect of membership, could face serious consequences. As the Economist highlighted on 3 November in an article entitled "Approaching Europe":
	"With some 22 million people penned inside a kind of poor Balkan reservation, inter-ethnic conflict, smuggling and organised crime would be certain to flourish.
	Compared with the cost of all that, EU membership might look quite cheap".
	There can be no doubt that the stabilisation of the Balkans and the accession of other Eastern bloc countries to the European Union require decisions of an historic nature and they provide a test that will determine whether the European Union succeeds in today's climate of globalisation and changing civilisation.
	We support the European Union in its capacity as the main donor of assistance to the Balkans. It has shown that it recognises progress by entering formal contractual relationships with qualifying states. Croatia and Moldova have both signed stabilisation and association agreements with the European Union. They seek to improve the existing autonomous trade preferences, and to provide autonomous trade liberalisation for 95 per cent of all the affected countries' exports to the European Union.
	We welcome Croatia as a member of the European Union. However, the legacy of the 1991–95 armed conflict continues to overshadow the former Yugoslavia as a whole. The region suffers from low standards of living and a serious brain drain. Understandably, frustration is still widespread. During the conflict, approximately 300,000 Croatian Serbs fled Croatia, out of which the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports that 200,000 remain displaced. The Adventist Development and Relief Agency reported at the end of last month that although it had seen some increase in the number of families returning home in the past couple of years,
	"many returnees are still faced with a number of obstacles".
	In short, it stated that,
	"unemployment is very high . . . and many homes have either been destroyed, looted or are otherwise occupied".
	While the Croatian authorities have pledged to return illegally occupied property to returning Croatian Serbs, the repossession rate remains slow and many have lost their tenancy rights to socially owned apartments. There are claims too that the Croatian Serbs continue to face discrimination in employment when unemployment is a problem in itself. What discussions do the Government plan to have with the Croatian authorities on this issue?
	These problems affect not only returning refugees. Discrimination remains a significant issue also for the Roma population—a subject that is often raised in this House. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made there?
	The Commission's report of November 2005 stated that Croatia faced no major difficulties in meeting the European Union's political criteria for membership. We welcome this, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, human rights issues continue to cast a shadow over Croatia's application. Despite the Croatian Government's pledge to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the authorities have adopted an ambivalent attitude. Negotiations have already been postponed once on these grounds. While the ICTY's chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Hannay, considers that Croatia is now doing everything that it can to locate and arrest Ante Gotovina, a former army general, who has been charged by the tribunal with crimes against humanity and war crimes against Krajina's Croatian Serb population during Operation Storm, would it not have been better if it had acted promptly in the first place? Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government will insist that less than full co-operation may well trigger a suspension of negotiations?
	I understand that corruption continues to be a serious problem too, although the legal framework to combat it seems largely to be in place. It is vital that these problems are resolved before accession to full membership is allowed, but the visa problem needs to be addressed by us, as several noble Lords have mentioned today.
	Croatia is not yet there, nor is the former Yugoslavia as a whole. Contention still reigns between Croatia and Slovenia over the Bay of Piran and the relationship with the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, but slowly Croatia is taking great steps in the right direction. As highlighted by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in his eloquent opening speech, this direction has largely started to help stabilise the country and its neighbours, and will also help to promote constructive regionalism and aid the assistance to subsidiarity; "a zone of hope" as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, described it.
	It is essential that we watch this process with care and continue with the tight tests for membership. At the same time, we should encourage and support applications like Croatia's as best we can in the interests of peace and stability, in a region that has already suffered too much from turmoil and strife.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I was able to make a Statement on 11 October about the opening of negotiations with Turkey and Croatia, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for giving us the opportunity to discuss Croatia on this occasion in much more detail. I thank him and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, on his son-in-law's sagacity and political judgment. It is much appreciated, I can assure you. I do that just as wholeheartedly as I congratulate Croatia on winning the Davis Cup. I wish we had its weather—it might improve things generally.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has asked us an interesting and relevant question: what contribution will Croatia's accession to the EU make towards peace and prosperity in Europe? The noble Earl has indicated that Croatia can play a positive role in this important task. Others have echoed that thought—and I share that view—and he has linked it with a number of other key facts. He has also asked about the principle of subsidiarity and the importance of international exchange in the UK's own formulation of policy. I will do my best to answer all those points.
	It is worth saying to my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea, and to others, that Croatia is, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, potentially a stabilising influence, and I would like to explore that thought as well. When my noble friend Lord Giddens referred to a book he had recently acquired, it might have been just 1 per cent of its pages covering an area of such importance, but he is right to say that that percentage would probably be a great deal more now when we consider the peace and trade and other advantages that have come through Europe, replacing the serial violence of the continent. That is a great gain for all of us, and important to all the parts of the former Yugoslavia.
	Of the former Yugoslavia, leaving aside Slovenia, Croatia has moved the furthest towards EU membership. I take my noble friend Lord Anderson's point about its proud European history, and, as the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Giddens, have said, this European sense of belonging is important. Support for the EU did indeed fall after Croatia's accession talks were postponed in March, but equally polls have now shown that this has risen again, although not wholly, following the start of the accession talks on 3 October. That reflects what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said a few moments ago: it demonstrates to Croatia, as it does to others, the advantages of European Union membership, because it demonstrates the importance of the broader values and our commitment to keeping our word that, where progress is made, there are substantial advantages that we will ensure obtain.
	The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also raised in a way the issue of identity—Balkans or central Europe, as I think he characterised it. I completely agree. The view is that Croatia is in central Europe, but it does not mean that it cannot also be designated as part of the western Balkans. Historically it has played both of those roles. Albania is negotiating a stabilisation and association agreement. Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina have recently, under the UK presidency, opened their negotiations for an SAA as well. Macedonia recently received an opinion from the Commission on its formal application for membership. We are pleased as we look across that swathe that the countries in the region are beginning to take steps towards EU membership and starting to adopt the necessary reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asks whether there has been sufficient progress and rightly makes the point that progress has been more significant over the past 18 months. I agree. In this process Croatia's progress towards EU membership sets an example for the other Balkan countries to follow. Croatia demonstrates that the EU will fulfil its commitments when the agreed conditions are met.
	So the most important thing that Croatia can do for the region is to continue its progress towards EU membership. Let me be clear though. That does mean sustaining full co-operation with the ICTY. I shall comment a little more on that in a moment. It also means continuing to reform its institution, and it means working to put in place the acquis. It will not be an easy task. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, is right about that. It will be difficult. But I am convinced that the Croatian Government, with EU support, can achieve it. As it does so, I am also confident that Croatia will share its experience of the negotiations process with others in the region. The business of developing government structures and transposing EU law can be very challenging, but I am sure that Croatia's neighbours will be grateful for the advice they then receive.
	I know that Croatia has taken important steps to improve radically its bilateral relationship with its neighbours. President Kostunica visited Croatia last month, the first visit by a Serb Prime Minister, and this visit was characterised by a determination to work together as neighbours. Croatia should work with Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to resolve their outstanding issues. Some of these—such as border management, which came up a moment ago—are of great importance to the United Kingdom. Many smuggling routes for illegal immigrants and trafficked people—trafficked women in particular—and for arms and drugs pass through the western Balkans on their way to the United Kingdom. We want to see the region develop coherent policies to combat that. Likewise, the countries must continue to work together to resolve legacy issues from the conflicts of the 1990s. In particular, they must work together on refugee returns to ensure that conditions are in place and encouragement is given to refugees—to all of the ethnic groups who want to return to the homes they fled in the 1990s.
	The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, have both raised that point. Rather than deal with it at great length, I just want to say that the UK Government have been consistent in the work they are doing to support the return to the Krajina region of Serb refugees who fled Croatia during the conflicts. We are pleased that many are returning. Issues of provision of housing and of overcoming discrimination in employment are central to the work that we are doing. It was right that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, made those points to us a few moments ago. The Croatian Government, in respect of the Roma, have also recently adopted a national plan to address issues relating to Roma populations. We will be monitoring its implementation as I believe we have a duty to do.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others also spoke about subsidiarity. I agree with the points that they made. We are scheduled to discuss that in more detail later in the month. But I would argue that we have a very strong and positive reason to support EU enlargement on its own merits. I shall come to those reasons in a second.
	In that context I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for highlighting that we must all learn from each other. Every country that joins the EU brings examples of good practice from which we can learn. As my noble friend Lord Giddens said, international interaction exists in many places—the EU, the UN and the Council of Europe, to name but a few places where experts and officials can come together to learn from each others' experience and to develop best practice. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also rightly emphasised that point.
	Croatia fully participates in these activities in the UN, the Council of Europe and so on. I look forward to the experience and knowledge that Croatia can bring to the European Union across all policy areas, including penal policy. I assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom and Croatia will work together in committees on those issues. Naturally it is for the Home Office to report on that important work. I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that not only do we have the opportunity of learning but so does Croatia, certainly as regards the finance sector and armed forces' compatibility if there is a real intention to take part in the alliance. As ever, learning is a two-way street.
	Several noble Lords asked about Croatia's co-operation with the Hague Tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right—co-operation is essential. It remains our position—I am sorry if I disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, in saying this—that impunity is not a viable alternative. The issue is central to Croatia's EU accession talks. The EU and the UK have consistently made it clear that full co-operation is absolutely essential. The positive report by Chief Prosecutor del Ponte on 3 October meant Croatia had met that condition, and in consequence the EU took the decision to open negotiations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I am not sceptical; I respect Mrs del Ponte's judgment and her independence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, unless we deal with the matter, the legacy issues will always lead to financial and economic backwardness and other disadvantage. The Council has also agreed that if there is not full co-operation at any stage, it will affect the overall progress of negotiations and will be grounds for triggering suspension of them. It is absolutely crucial that Croatia maintains this level of co-operation. The UK and the EU will follow this question very closely. I welcome Prime Minister Sanader's commitment that Croatia will maintain full co-operation until Gotovina is in the Hague. This is important; it cannot be expressed any other way. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, emphasised that point.
	How are we assisting in these processes regarding Croatia? The EU and the UK have been generous supporters of the stabilisation and accession processes in Croatia. We are delighted with the values that have been created by the investment we have made. Between 2001 and 2006, a total of more than €500 million has been committed to Croatia under various EU schemes. The UK has itself generously contributed to Croatia through the Foreign Office's Global Opportunities Fund. In 2005, more than €615,000 was allocated to projects in Croatia. These are all designed to press forward the reforms essential for EU integration.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Lords, Lord Biffen and Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness raised the visa issue. We continue to impose a visa regime on Croatian nationals. It is kept under regular review, not in the sense that a review report is published, but in the sense of our looking at the necessity for it. We shall not keep it for a moment longer than is strictly necessary.
	As regards enlargement in general, during our presidency we have seen progress not just by Turkey and Croatia but also by practically all the countries of the western Balkans. At a national level we are bringing forward a Bill to ratify the EU accession treaty with Romania and Bulgaria, which had its First Reading in your Lordships' House recently. I look forward to debating its later stages.
	These are real achievements which will affect the lives of millions of people and for which this presidency that we have enjoyed will be remembered. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his comments about the successes of the presidency. His work and the work of other distinguished diplomats paved the way for this progress. Support for enlargement is expressed on all sides at Westminster; it is a tradition in this country that is irrespective of party. It is clear from the comments that have been made that this Parliament remains a champion of enlargement. We support it with money and we support it with advice. We support it because we believe that it is right. It demonstrates in action not words the transformative power of the EU. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords, including and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when he talked about how it had been a spur to so much reform. The western Balkan countries and Turkey will present particular challenges that we will have to address. Enlargement Commissioner Rehn has stressed the need for the Commission to monitor candidates closely. EU standards must be scrupulously met. I entirely agree with that; it is a rigorous approach to conditionality and it must remain so.
	The issue of whether we are moving too fast is important. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, suggested that. However, it would be unfair to block countries that are trying to make faster progress than they might otherwise make because of the prospect that is in front of them. Accession—soft power, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly called it—is a great compass to direct countries in a helpful direction. Of course that compass route is corrected by having conditions; that is the point of them. I do not know that I can fully answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Giddens about political Europe. Of course the EU is an open market, which is one of its great benefits. But as a political entity it also helps to establish decent standards for conduct in many areas right across its remit. That must not be a formula that stultifies enterprise; that would not help. It is a powerful influence on the world. I have seen in discussions just last week at the EU-AU troika meeting in Mali that it is a force to argue for peace and security in places where it is very difficult. Next week, I hope that I am going to use the authority that the troika provides to see if we cannot get a more peaceful stand-off between Ethiopia and Eritrea. I do not know whether that will succeed, but I know that it is a powerful addition to the arguments that are available to us. That is political, that is global, and that is in all of our interests. It is not in Europe, it is not a state or quasi-state; we are acting together because we can add value by acting together. We should always consider on the occasions when we act as a separate nation state whether that is the best way. Those are the judgments that we must all make as part of the bigger judgment.
	I conclude with a thought that I borrow unashamedly from John Major, which may come as a surprise to noble Lords opposite. It is from his Guildhall speech made on 20 November 1995, almost exactly 10 years ago. He said that eastern and central Europe have been the cockpit of war through the centuries. But we now have an historic opportunity to bind them into a single market and into the democratic embrace of western Europe. That is why enlargement of the European Union remains a vital objective. Prime Minister Tony Blair has echoed that thought on more than one occasion. I echo it and I pay tribute to it today, because it is the right vision. In my father's generation, most young men saw Europe in uniform, and they often saw other Europeans down the sights of a gun. Our peace must extend—the peace that has been created throughout Europe and throughout the Balkans. They are on the path already, and they can travel far further on the path. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for giving us the opportunity to explore how that can be achieved.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I must press the Minister a little more. He said that the visa regime is constantly under review. Can he give any indication, on the basis of the strength of the case that has been made by the noble Lord, when a decision is likely to be reached, bearing in mind that the visa regime has been in existence for over five or six years? A time must come when we conclude that arrangement.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I had hoped that I had indicated that there were a number of considerations. There is still the smuggling of arms by people who come into this country from the Balkans, women trafficking and the smuggling of drugs through those regions. I believe that the House will want us to feel confident that people who apply for visas and come in are subject to a proper and full regime. It is not 100 per cent certain among the refugees who have not returned to their homes that they yet feel confident, and they may turn elsewhere as well. We must be really certain about this in the interests of the security of our own country. I emphasise that the visa regime should not and will not be maintained for a minute longer than we believe is necessary.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I shall detain the House for one moment simply to say that we should take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that our Principal Doorkeeper, John Kirtley, is retiring imminently. This will be the last occasion on which he carries the Mace from this House. There will be many other occasions, I am sure, when we can pay proper tribute to his service to this House, but I think it is right that on this occasion, I, on behalf of the whole House—all the parties and the Cross Benches—acknowledge the splendid service he has given to this House and to wish him the very happiest retirement.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: Hear, hear.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, may I add "Hear, hear" from these Benches, because the noble Lord forgot to mention the Bishops' Bench?

House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.